Another One Bites the Dust! Defendant in Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson’s Federal Lawsuit, Sherry K. Cohen of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee joins Thomas Cahill in early retirement. Iviewit Inventor, Eliot I Bernstein Supports Criminal Actions Against Cohen, Cahill and other Members of the New York Supreme Court. EXTRA — READ ALL ABOUT IT @ EXPOSE CORRUPT COURTS!!!

Another One Bites the Dust! Defendant in Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson’s Federal Lawsuit, Sherry K. Cohen of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee joins Thomas Cahill in early retirement. Iviewit Inventor, Eliot I Bernstein Supports Criminal Actions Against Cohen, Cahill and other Members of the New York Supreme Court. EXTRA — READ ALL ABOUT IT @ EXPOSE CORRUPT COURTS!!!

Copy courtesy of Expose Corrupt Courts Here

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Corrupt Ethics Attorney Sherry K. Cohen Departing, Finally
Sherry Kruger Cohen, the corrupt Deputy Chief Counsel of the Appellate Division, First Department Attorney Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the “DDC”) has agreed to take the state-offered buy-out. Mrs. Cohen, a graduate of Hofstra University Law School, will leave her post at the 61 Broadway state offices at the end of the year.

12 comments:

Wall Street Attorney said…

Someone should suggest a presidential stimulus package for the Wall Street bars and liquor stores. After Sherry leaves the DDC, there will be a dramatic hit on the liquor business.September 16, 2010 12:03 PM  

Sherry Cohen Victim said…

This corrupt, mean-spirited bitch should rot in hell for her illegal actions. Whoever you God is, Sherry, you should be frozen with fear!September 16, 2010 12:51 PM  

Anonymous said…

Holy crap. Can you imagine the drinking that’ll be going on when the Sherry leaves the DDC. First, everyone who works there will have a party that’ll last for days. Also, Sherry won’t be bothered with destroying and creating evidence anymore, she’ll be drinking more than ever, if that’s even possible.Is anyone taking a collection. Let’s send her a few hundred cases of booze. Or instead of a gold watch, how about golden handcuffs. 

September 16, 2010 12:58 PM  

Quietly Smiling said…

Ah, the departure of the “cleaner” is oh so interesting. Think she’ll wind up at the First Department Court in some capacity?September 16, 2010 1:12 PM  

Anonymous said…

Why is she waiting for the end of the year, so they can find some other corrupt corner to put her in?September 16, 2010 1:27 PM  

Anonymous said…

Why would the state offer any buy out……like they did those corrupt banks & corporations…..
No money for Cohen, she did the dirty deeds, she has gotten caught and paybacks are a bitch!September 16, 2010 1:30 PM  

Anonymous said…

let those lawyers & law firms she covered up for pay her a “consultant fee” !!!!!September 16, 2010 1:42 PM  

Anonymous said…

let those lawyers & law firms she covered up for pay her a “consultant fee” !!!!!September 16, 2010 1:42 PM  

Anonymous said…

Oh Sherry, hic up, hic up..Did Allen Isaac find you another position somewhere else?..maybe at the DA’s Office next to ADA Lisa Friel!!!Is Naomi Goldstein going anywhere?..Is she still at the DDC? I’m sure she’s going to be promoted Chief Counsel soon!! 

Good bye and good riddens Sherry Cohen…have you confirred with your pal Allen Isaac about your departing plans??????

September 16, 2010 2:59 PM  

Maybe!!!! said…

TaTa Sherry..don’t let the door hit you in the arzzzzzzzz!!!!! Btw,don’t forget to bring the rest of the thugs along with you…I hope and pray the Feds grab all of you while you’re walking out the door!!!!!September 16, 2010 4:53 PM  

Anonymous said…

Where are the beefy exhibits Frank E Baby? Anyone got beef with my hero Scheindlin for what she already did for you all by having Anderson sing death lullaby to Cahill, Sherry, AG Cuomo, Spookany, etc. must take it up with me, her soon to be Supreme Court chauffeur. You never know what gun is put to the head of those who do the right thing immediately after and what it may cause them to do after, like gun to granddaughter head can be swaying to some but you can never forget that pristine moment of heroism. You must worship it forever, despite what the future holds. Now be prepared in that scenario of Scheindlin acting off to fire off complaints against her if she does not follow the law but file them with love and pain, as I do with Catherine Wolfe and others. To all those waiting for her, stop and do something bold with what is already before you, be proactive stop waiting for Frank or Shira or Cuomo, fire off some criminal complaints against all those Anderson fingered with everybody, the more the merrier.
And to those most unethical ethics officers who have cast an evil upon this land filled with pain and suffering and death, take comfort that I, Eliot and I A-m That I A-m have a special place for you in hell. I personally will be your eternal tour guide, if you think my writing is long wait until you hear my voice eternally damning you, 24.7.Eternally. Ask Cahill if his soul has been sucked from his being, ask him my name and you will see fear.
Sherry K. Cohen, I already have sucked the lifeblood from your soul. Remember me in Scheindlin’s court, the devilish looking angel that your eyes were fixated upon? Your breath sucked dry, as I sat directly in front of your lying and evil soulless body, remember the conversation that only you could hear? I already hear your prayers, your whiney begging and know they will not be answered as that conversation was had, the jury out. This sentence will be long, slow and eternally painful, you will pray more and more for swift death but the beginning is now, death will not help, it is when the fun with you really begins.
Your Travel Guide to Hell
Bat Out of Hell
Mad Inventor
Eliot Ivan BernsteinSeptember 16, 2010 7:38 PM  

Tax payer said…

The first time I saw Sherry K. Cohen the mental image was of her is the uniform of an SS Nazi guard.
Her subsequent appearances have not dissuade me of this representation. How much did her continued silence cost the 1st DEPT. aka the NYS Illegal System?
How much of the taxpapers money did the dirtbags spend?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Christine C. Anderson, New York Supreme Court Whistleblower Comes Out Swinging at New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, claims Cuomo Violating Public Office Duties Aiding Abetting Criminal Obstruction of Justice??? Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein Supports Anderson’s Heroic Claims of Corruption in the New York Supreme Courts and Prosecutors Offices. READ ALL ABOUT IT @ Expose Corrupt Courts!!!

Christine C. Anderson, New York Supreme Court Whistleblower Comes Out Swinging at New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, claims Cuomo Violating Public Office Duties Aiding Abetting Criminal Obstruction of Justice??? Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein Supports Anderson’s Heroic Claims of Corruption in the New York Supreme Courts and Prosecutors Offices. READ ALL ABOUT IT @ Expose Corrupt Courts!!!

Expose Corrupt Courts

MLK said: “Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere”

End Corruption in the Courts!

Court employee, judge or citizen – Report Corruption in any Court Today !! As of September 6, 2010, we’ve received over 109,900 tips…KEEP THEM COMING !! CorruptCourts@gmail.com

Most Read Stories

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

 

Anderson Moves to Disqualify NY Attorney General

CLICK HERE TO READ ANDERSON’S FILING TO DISQUALIFY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

——————————————————————X
Christine C. Anderson,

Case No.: 07cv9599
Plaintiff-Appellant, (SAS) (AJP)

2d Cir. No. 09-5059-cv v.

The State of New York,
Defendants-Appellees.

——————————————————————X

NOTICE OF MOTION

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the accompanying affirmation, Plaintiff-Appellant Christine C. Anderson will move this Honorable Court, at the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, at a date and time to be determined by the Court, for an order:

(1)DISQUALIFYING the Office of the New York State Attorney General from representation of defendants; and

(2) for such other and further relief as the Court may find just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York

September 14, 2010

Christine C. Anderson, plaintiff, pro se

227 Riverside Drive – Suite 2N

New York, New York 10025

917-817-7170 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 917-817-7170 end_of_the_skype_highlighting tel

To: Monica Wagner, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Office of the NYS Attorney General, 120 Broadway, 24th floor, New York, New York 10271

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

——————————————————————X
Christine C. Anderson,

Case No.: 07cv9599
Plaintiff-Appellant, (SAS) (AJP)

2d Cir. No. 09-5059-cv

v.

The State of New York,

Defendants-Appellees.

——————————————————————X

AFFIRMATIONIN SUPPORT OF MOTION

I, Christine C. Anderson, make the following affirmation under penalties of perjury:

I, Christine C. Anderson, am the plaintiff-appellant in the above entitled action, and respectfully move this court to issue an order disqualifying the Office of the New York

State Attorney General from representing defendant-employees of the State of New York

in any legal proceeding involving the herein before any federal or state court, agency or any other tribunal. The reasons why I am entitled to the relief I seek, and pending remand to the district court for a new trial as herein explained, are the following:

I. Introduction

1. The trial court abused its discretion in denying my request for a new trial, a reversible error, inter alia. That error continues before this appellate body and requires immediate correction. Because of the unique perspective of the trial judge, the decision as to whether to grant a new trial is committed to the district court’s sound discretion and will be reversed only for a clear abuse of that discretion. Kempner Mobile Electronics, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, 428 F.3d 706, 716 (7th Cir. 2005); Latino v. Kaizer, 58 F.3d 310, 314 (7th Cir.1995). The trial judge advanced a miscarriage of justice by denying the application for a new trial. Remand is clearly indicated in this matter.

2. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 does not list the grounds for which a new trial may be granted. (Wright § 95). In federal courts, common law must be looked to in determining the available grounds. Of the numerous grounds justifying a grant of new trial, one is that the “interests of justice” require a new trial. See e.g., Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Standard Havens, Inc., 901 F.2d 1373, 1379 (7th Cir. 1990) (affirming grant of new trial after a three-week jury trial). Among the grounds cited for seeking new trials are the following:

(1) Irregularity of the proceedings;

(2) Misconduct of jury;

(3) Accident or surprise;

(4) Newly discovered evidence;

(5) Insufficient evidence;

(6) Verdict against law;

(7) Error in law;

(8) Excessive or inadequate damages.

3. A court has broad discretion in considering a Rule 59(e) motion. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 413 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 820 (1988). Rule 59(e) was adopted to clarify that “the district court possesses the power to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following the entry of judgment.” White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982) (internal quotations omitted). A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted to correct a manifest error of law or fact, or to consider newly-discovered evidence. See Hagerman, 890 F.2d at 414.

II. The Attorney General’s Representation of the Defendants Constitutes

A Clear Conflict of Interest, and Violates Plaintiff’s Right to Due Process

4. In this action, plaintiff Anderson was confronted with an unquestionably unfair set of circumstances. She brought her complaint against three individuals, who, although employed by the State of New York, were also sued in their individual capacities. These defendants in turn were at all times represented by the New York State Attorney General. Thus, while the plaintiff charged the defendants with serious violations of law, the Attorney General stood before the jury defending these very same actions as proper and within the law. This arrangement seriously prejudiced the plaintiff, as jurors could and likely did conclude that the State of New York supported fully the conduct of the defendants.

Ongoing Conflict of Interest

5. Representation by the New York Attorney General’s office in the pending appeal continues the improper prejudice against plaintiff. Furthermore, not only did the Attorney General’s representation of the defendants unduly prejudice the plaintiff, but it also raised serious conflict of interest issues with respect to the defendants themselves. To protect their own rights, each of the defendants had to have their own attorneys in order to permit them to cross claim or make admissions, including their own right to protect their own individual rights in this appeal. Under New York State and federal conflict of interest rules, each of the defendants must be free to undertake these independent actions. To do so, they must have their own counsel. (See NYS Code of Professional Conduct Cannon 5 Conflict of Interest Rules.) The Attorney General as a state attorney is bound by these rules as well.

6. This constitutes New York State law, and the attorney who violates these safeguards must be immediately removed from the case. Further, should the defendants seek to waive the conflict- they would have to submit an affidavit to that effect to the court. Notwithstanding a defendant’s attempt to waive his right to independent counsel, the court can deny the waiver, based on a finding that ultimately this conflict cannot properly be waived. The trail court improperly ignored the obligation to address the inherent conflict up to and including the trial. This court, however, must now disqualify the Attorney General from any representation of the defendants.

7. As a result of these conflict of interest issues, the Attorney General cannot properly represent the defendants, either as a group or individually, in these appellate proceedings. Each defendant must have the right to advance his or her own position on appeal, to cross claim against the others, and to bring a counterclaim against the State. These actions most certainly could not be undertaken in a case where the Attorney General represents all the named defendants. All defendants clearly are in conflict with each other, especially in their individual capacities. Without question, the Attorney General violated its ethical rules and the public trust in undertaking to represent all of the defendants. The Attorney General continues to violate its ethical rules by appearing before this appellate body. This would be the case, even were it established that the defendants had sought to consent to such representation.

The Clear Need For Remand

8. The involvement of the New York Attorney General in refuting plaintiff’s allegations, which involved serious violations of federal and state law and ethical standards, and in presenting the case of each defendants, denied plaintiff’s due process and equal protection guarantees, and right to a fair and impartial trial. See Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934) (“if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental”) and Eldridge v. Williams, 424 U.S. 319 335 (1974)

9. The conflict here is particularly acute given the nature of the claims brought by plaintiff Anderson. Plaintiff’s charges warranted an independent investigation by the New York State Attorney General’s Office to review the basic claims given that Anderson was formerly a Departmental Disciplinary Committee staff attorney with considerable experience and over the years received excellent evaluations. The fact is that these are not allegations from a lay person.

10. While at the DDC, Plaintiff Anderson was charged with investigating cases involving possible criminal and civil misconduct by attorneys. She carried out her duties as a duly authorized officer of the Court. The New York State Attorney General’s Office was therefore obligated to protect her and to investigate her claims of serious misconduct against the named parties. To the Contrary, the New York State Attorney General’s Office failed to do so.

11. The Attorney General is a publicly funded arm of the State. It was conflicted from the outset of this case because it could not possibly defend any of the defendants, while simultaneously investigating plaintiff’s claims of serious ongoing misconduct by the defendants. Indeed, no explanation has ever been provided as to why the Attorney General did not represent plaintiff Anderson againstany of the original defendants. This was itself a misappropriation of public funds by a state investigative agency with prosecution powers.

12. Federal law mandates that a special prosecutor be substituted into the case, and this was not done. The actions of the Attorney General here confused, misled and confounded the jury, by creating a false impression that the acts were officially sanctioned by the state.

13. Furthermore, Christine Anderson’s allegations have substantial impact on the public, the bench and bar, and cannot be ignored by the New York State Attorney General’s Office merely because they were motivated to defend this lawsuit. This serious conflict demanded independent counsel for the defendants as a matter of fairness and high ethical conduct to all involved, particularly to Christine Anderson. Having denied independent counsel to the defendants, the Attorney General prejudiced plaintiff by making it appear to the jury that the State of New York and the New York State Attorney General’s Office supported defendants’ conduct. This was a burden Christine Anderson could never overcome and, at a minimum, warrants a new trial. The unfair burden continues before this appellate court.

14. Additionally, Remand is also certain as the trial Court was concerned about the aforestated conflict of interest and in one of its last instructions to the jury, the Court warned the jury not to draw a negative inference adverse to the defendants for their joint representation by the New York State Attorney General’s Office. That instruction was injurious to the plaintiff, Christine Anderson, in that it prejudiced the jury against her and in and of itself warrants a new trial for the following reasons:

a. It was one of the last instructions to the jury and thus was ingrained in the minds of the jury as a lasting impression. Furthermore, as one of the last instructions to the jury, it elevated its importance over and above all prior instructions as something that had to be considered indifference to all else.

b. There was no countervailing instruction to the jury that it could find a negative inference of the representation by the New York State Attorney General’s Office favorable to the plaintiff. This failure prejudiced the jury against the plaintiff by implying at a minimum, that the state supported all of the defendants’ conduct and found that it was within the bounds of the law.

c. Had the Court even given the jury an instruction not to draw a negative inference of the representation of the defendants by the New York State Attorney General’s Office as against either or both the plaintiff and the defendants, such an instruction only demonstrates the proof that there is an impermissible conflict of interest in the manner in which this case was conducted, that can only hurt one party over another. Further, the representation by the New York State Attorney General’s Office made it appear New York State supported the defendants’ conduct and that it was within the bounds of the law.

d. By the Court issuing the jury instruction not to draw a negative inference adverse to the defendants for their representation by the New York State Attorney General’s Office, the court preserved the argument to be raised in this motion and appeal.

e. Allowing all of the defendants to be represented by the same counsel and by the New York State Attorney General’s Office created an impermissible conflict of interest. Indeed, the conflict was so strong, that had the jury ruled against any one or all of the defendants, they would have been entitled to seek a new trial for impermissible conflict of interest as they would entitled to their own independent counsel. This court is thus faced with the fact any unsuccessful litigant in this case appeal could be expected to move for and would be entitled to a new trial because of the impermissible conflict of interest, as all of the defendants are required to have their own independent counsel, and to be represented their own counsel.

15. The American Bar Association’s Code of Professional Responsibility elaborates on the duty of a public prosecutor such as the New York Attorney General to seek justice as follows:

“This special duty exists because: (1) the prosecutor represents the sovereign and therefore should use restraint in the discretionary exercise of governmental powers, such as in the selection of cases to prosecute; (2) during trial the prosecutor is not only an advocate but he also may make decisions normally made by an individual client, and those affecting the public interest should be fair to all ….” (ABA Code of Prof. Responsibility, EC 7-13, emphasis added.)

16. Therefore, a prosecutor’s duty of neutrality is born of two fundamental aspects of his employment. First, the prosecutor, in this case the Attorney General, is a representative of the sovereign, and consequently must act with the impartiality required of those who govern. Second, the Attorney General can at all times call upon the vast power of the government, by utilizing public funds, and therefore must refrain from abusing that power by failing to act evenhandedly.

17. These key duties are not limited to criminal prosecutions, but must also be observed in civil cases as well. These safeguards are included in the ABA Code. “A government lawyer in a civil action or administrative proceeding has the responsibility to seek justice and to develop a full and fair record, and he should not use his position or the economic power of the government to harass parties or to bring about unjust settlements or results.” (Id., EC 7-14, emphasis added.)

18. In the present case, the Attorney General was under the ethical duty to withdraw in order to preserve plaintiff’s right to a fair and impartial trial. In a case such as this, not only is the Attorney General’s neutrality essential to a fair outcome for the plaintiff, it is critical to the proper function of the judicial process as a whole. Our system of justice relies for its validity on the confidence of society. Without a continuing belief by the people that the system is just and impartial, the concept of the rule of law cannot survive. (See id., EC 9-1, 9-2.)

19. The New York State Attorney General is a public official elected by statewide ballot . The American Bar Association’s Code of Professional Responsibility addresses the special considerations applicable to a lawyer who is also a public official as follows: “A lawyer who is a public officer, whether full or part-time, should not engage in activities in which his personal or professional interests are or foreseeably may be in conflict with his official duties.” (ABA Code of Prof. Responsibility, EC 8-8.) “[A]n attorney holding public office should avoid all conduct which might lead the layman to conclude that the attorney is utilizing his public position to further his professional success or personal interests.” (ABA Committee on Prof. Ethics, opn. No. 192 (1939); see also People v. Conner, 34 Cal.3d 141, 146.)

20. The government’s investigative and prosecutorial interests must be balanced against the public interest in insuring that the individuals and organizations receive effective representation, and are accorded their full constitutional rights and protections.

21. There are at least two reasons why a court should satisfy itself that no conflict exists or at least provide notice to the affected party if one does. First, a court is under a continuing obligation to supervise the members of its Bar. E.g., In re Taylor, 567 F.2d at 1191; see Musicus v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 621 F.2d 742, 744 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (district court obligated to take measures against unethical conduct occurring in proceedings before it). Second, trial courts have a duty “to exercise that degree of control required by the facts and circumstances of each case to assure the litigants of a fair trial.” Koufakis v. Carvel, 425 F.2d 892, 900-01 (2d Cir.1970); see ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(A)(4).

22. For example, when a litigant’s statutorily appointed counsel is acting against that person’s interests because of a conflict that the party has not been informed of and cannot be expected to understand on his own, it can be concluded that the litigant is not receiving a fair trial. Cf. Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 101 S.Ct. 1097, 67 L.Ed.2d 220 (1981) (divided loyalties of counsel may create due process violation).

23. Attorneys are officers of the court, Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 12, 53 S.Ct. 465, 468, 77 L.Ed. 993 (1933), and are obligated to adhere to all applicable disciplinary rules, and to report incidents of which they have unprivileged knowledge involving violations of a disciplinary rule. ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 1-102(A), 1-103(A); see In re Walker, 87 A.D.2d 555, 560, 448 N.Y.S.2d 474, 479 (1st Dep’t 1982) (as officers of the court, attorneys are required to notify parties and the court of errors including conflicts of interest).

24. Occupying a position of public trust, the Attorney General, as any public prosecutor is ‘possessed … of important governmental powers that are pledged to the accomplishment of one objective only, that of impartial justice.’ (Professional Responsibility: Report of the Joint Conference (1958) 44 A.B.A.J. 1159, 1218.) The duty of a government attorney has been characterized as ‘a sober inquiry into values, designed to strike a just balance between the economic interests of the public and those of the landowner,’ is of high order.” (Id. at p. 871.)

25. Canon 9, “A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance of Professional Impropriety,” has been invoked by this Court in attorney conflict cases. See, e.g., Fund of Funds, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 567 F.2d 225, 234-35 (2d Cir.1977). The Model Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted by the ABA House of Delegates on August 2, 1983 contain similar provisions and language. See Rules 1.7, 8.4.

26. Furthermore, and central to the issue of preventing prejudicial influence of government attorneys on court proceedings, it is common for states to adopt statutes or regulations that prohibit those holding the office of Attorney General, as well as their

deputies and staff attorneys, from participating as attorneys in private litigation matters. (see e.g. Arizona Revised Statutes §41-191 Attorney general;Florida Statutes, Section 27.51(3), Maryland Statutes and Procedures Governing Pro Bono Services of Attorney General Office .)

27. The reason for adopting these restrictions is most obvious. For the Attorney General or any member of the staff to participate in a civil trial involving a private litigant will create the prejudicial inference that the state has reviewed and approved the position advocated by the government attorney. Such an inference can and likely will influence the outcome of the matter to the detriment of the opposing party.

28. It is for the above stated reasons that no Attorney General or staff member should be permitted to represent a private litigant in any adversarial proceeding. Only such an outright prohibition will properly preserve the standards of fairness and impartiality guaranteed to all litigants under federal and state constitutions. The present lack of statutory and/or ethical policy guidelines barring the participation of state law officers from representing private litigants in civil proceedings must be addressed by courts even if not by policy makers.

III. The Attorney General’s Office Cannot Ethically Continue Any Representation

29. The irregularity of the proceedings below were confusing, misleading and prejudicial to the plaintiff enough without the involvement of the Attorney General. Indeed, remand will result after review of the Instructions to the jury, the court marked-up Verdict Sheet after a written jury question to the court concerning the whitewashing of attorney ethics complaints and wide-practiced corruption that, in fact, counsel for the defendants- The New York State Attorney General’s Office- had an obligation to investigate, inter alia.

30. Improperly, the top law enforcement officer of the state was silent and action was, and is, absent. This cannot be condoned by this appellate court.

31. The involvement of the Attorney General’s office improperly left the jury, and proceeding itself, in an unclear, puzzling and convoluted condition. This confusion resulted in a proceeding which is in a word repugnant.

32. The mere presence of the Attorney General has at all times been prejudicial to the plaintiff and, at best, confusing to the jury. It has been established that both inconsistent or equivocal instructions and incorrect statements of the law may be prejudicially erroneous, Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607, 612, 66 S.Ct. 402, 90 L.Ed. 350 (1946); United States v. Neilson, 471 F.2d 905, 908 (9th Cir. 1973); Bolden v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co, 468 F.2d 580; Ratay v. Lincoln National Life Ins. Co., 378 F.2d 209 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 973, 88 S.Ct. 472, 19 L.Ed.2d 465 (1967), and that comments made by the court shortly before the jury retires are critical, Norfleet v. Isthmian Lines, Inc., 355 F.2d 359, 362 (2d Cir. 1966).

33. The lower court improperly allowed representation of the defendants by the Attorney General. In fact, the court below improperly condoned the Attorney General’s presence, accordingly directing the jury that the Attorney General’s representation was proper when it was not. It is generally assumed that juries “act in accordance with the instructions given them…and that they do not consider and base their decisions on legal questions with respect to which they are not charged.” Dist. Council 37 v. New York City Dept. of Parks and Recreation 113 F3d 347,356 (2d Cir. 1997).

34. It was never up to the jury to consider the ethical failings of the Attorney General’s representation. It was the obligation of the Attorney General’s office, and upon the failure of that duty, the obligation of the court.

35. There is also no record that the role of the Attorney General as defense counsel was properly and adequately explained to the jury. While this also constitutes another reversible error by the Court which will be addressed by the appeal itself, representation of the Attorney General’s office improperly remains.

IV. Newly Discovered Evidence At Trial Required Immediate Disqualification

36. The court gave the jury above-referenced instructions and its members adjourned to the jury room to deliberate at approximately 1:25 pm on Thursday, October 29, 2009. After the jury left the courtroom, the court first announced that she had denied the defendants’ pending motion for a directed verdict. She next stated words to the effect that she found that , “….Cahill was aware of the whitewashing allegations…” (Exhibit A, pages 808-809) The judge read this statement related to defendant Cahill’s conduct into the record as part of her order denying defendant’s directed verdict. This fact alone requires a new trial, and should have resulted in the Attorney General’s office immediately withdrawing from the case.

37. In addition, Courts have an obligation to report and order investigation into official and at times criminal misconduct. This is a duty of the Court. There is no record to date as to any action having been undertaken by the Court regarding this central question. (See also recent decisions on spoliation of evidence which are state and federal crimes. Acorn v. Nassau County - cv052301 (2009 USDistLEXIS 19459) and Gutman v. Klein, 03cv1570. 2008 WL 5084182, 2008 WL 4682208.

38. The Court’s finding of culpability on the part of Defendant Cahill constitutes newly discovered evidence, which directly supports the fundamental allegations of Plaintiff.

Remand to the District Court for a new trial is highly likely as the trial court abused its discretion in denying a new trial. The Attorney General’s failure to withdraw is, in fact, sanctionable and worthy of referral to the attorney ethics committee.

39. Clearly the newly discovered fact that defendant Cahill, as the head of the DDC and supervisor of the other named defendants, had full knowledge of whitewashing activities would in all likelihood have changed the outcome of the case. This central fact establishing the liability of all named defendants could not have been discovered earlier and is not merely cumulative or impeaching. (See Farragher v. Boca Raton , 524 U.S. 775, 18 S. Ct. 2275 (1998)which imputes liability to supervisors in any event. In Farragher, the Supreme Court held that an employer is vicariously liable for actionable discrimination caused by a supervisor.All defendants are jointly and severally liable here. In fact, the State of New York is liable under Faragher, all while representation of the Attorney General’s office improperly continued.

JUDICIAL FINDING KEPT FROM A DELIBERATING JURY

40. Here, the new evidence establishes that in the view of the Court, Defendant Cahill, the head officer of the DDC and the supervisor of the other defendants, had full knowledge of the practice of whitewashing as alleged by Plaintiff, leading to the parallel conclusion that whitewashing was accepted as a common practice by the defendants, and presumably other staff members of the DDC. Had such facts been confirmed during the trial stage, the jury would have come to know and understand the illegal activities that were accepted as everyday practice by the DDC staff, a finding totally consistent with a main element of Plaintiff’s case. At all times relevant, however, the Attorney General’s office improperly continued their representation of the very people the Court found had acted illegally.

41. The Court’s statement after the close of trial accepting the establishing the whitewashing activities by Defendant Cahill will demand remand for a new trial. Meanwhile, the damage to the rule of law and ethics by the Attorney General’s office must be dealt with by this appellate court.

V. Witness Tampering – Threat on Witness in a Federal Proceeding

42. The Attorney General and the trial court were aware that in August of 2008, one of the plaintiff’s witnesses, DDC staff attorney Nicole Corrado, was threatened. Two days prior to her deposition testimony, state employee, and DDC Deputy Chief Counsel, Andral N. Bratton, and who had been her immediate supervisor for approximately 5 years, confronted Corrado. Bratton advised Corrado that in 2007 he had admitted himself into a psychiatric hospital for serious emotional problems, that he had “suicidal tendencies,” and that he was “warning” her accordingly. When Corrado asked Bratton why he was warning her, Bratton simply repeated several times in a very serious and stern tone by saying, “I’m just warning you.”

43. Following Corrado’s deposition testimony on August 21, 2008, Bratton’s behavior toward Corrado became more harassing, troubling, frightening and threatening as he began to follow her inside and outside of the state office where they both worked. Corrado subsequently reported these serious issues to DDC chief counsel Allan Friedberg, Deputy chief Counsel Sherry Cohen, a defendant in the current proceeding, and DDC Chief Investigator Vincent Raniere- all of whom who took no required action.

44. Plaintiff’s former counsel, John Beranbaum, advised the court, and by copy, the Attorney General, of this incident in a letter to the court dated October 24, 2008. In the Beranbaum submission, it was made clear to the court and the Attorney General that Ms. Corrado was given a ‘“warning’ about the testimony she was to gave at the deposition[,]” and further advised that “Ms. Corrado is very upset about the entire experience.

45. Mr. Beranbaum again raised the issue on the record four days later on October 30, 2008. (See Exhibit, “B” – Transcript of October 30, 2008 hearing, Page 26 (lines 17-25), and page 27 (lines 1-8). The court, in responding to the letter advising of the threat on plaintiff’s witness, commented, “You [Mr. Beranbaum] seem to want to tell me something or report it to me. Okay. You report it to me.”

46. It is plaintiff’s belief that the court had an obligation to report the matter to federal agents and, further, to interview Ms. Corrado concerning the incident. In addition, the Attorney General also had an obligation as the state’s top enforcer of the law.

  1. Plaintiff believes she has been severely prejudiced by the threat upon her witness, Ms. Corrado, and, as the lower court and Attorney General were aware, Ms. Corrado did not appear as a witness in this proceeding.

48. While plaintiff is aware that counsel within the Office of the New York Attorney General’s office offered to “fully” compensate Mr. Beranbaum for ALL of his legal fees, expenses, etc., if plaintiff settled her case, she is unaware of the exact timing of when the compensation offer, believed to be between $120,000.00 and $150,000.00, was actually made.

VI. Conclusion

49. For the reasons set forth, Moving respectfully requests that this Court in the interest of justice issue an order restraining the Office of the New York State Attorney General’s office from representing employees of the State of New York in any legal proceeding involving the herein before any federal or state court, agency or any other tribunal grant a new trial.

50. As noted, the participation of the Attorney General in failing to investigate the charges submitted by plaintiff against the defendants, and subsequently representing these same persons in the instant court proceedings, denied plaintiff’s constitutionally protected right to a fair and impartial trial. This denial of basic rights was compounded by unclear, confusing and convoluted instructions to the jury, discovery of new evidence and serious allegations of intimidation of witnesses, which all support the de novo pending appeal and granting of the instant motion for disqualification.

51. Wherefore, Moving respectfully requests that the court grant the within Motion, as well as such other and further relief that may be just and proper. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on September 14, 2010

New York, New York Christine C. Anderson

Plaintiff, Pro Se

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ny/code/NY_CODE.HTM ; Conflict of Interest Disciplinary Rule 5

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ny/code/

As head of the Department of Law, the Attorney General is both the “People’s Lawyer” and the State’s chief legal officer. As the “People’s Lawyer,” the Attorney General serves as the guardian of the legal rights of the citizens of New York, its organizations and its natural resources. In his role as the State’s chief legal counsel, the Attorney General not only advises the Executive branch of State government, but also defends actions and proceedings on behalf of the State. http://www.oag.state.ny.us/our_office.html

The Supreme Court set out the following balancing test for applying procedural due process protections: “[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.”

The fact that the Attorney General is elected by the voters of New York State raises a question with respect to the qualification of the jurors. No juror in the present case was asked whether he or she had voted for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo at the last election, or, for that matter, whether they supported the actions undertaken by him since assuming office, or further. whether they, as a general matter, agree with the general or specific policies of or initiatives undertaken and/or advocated by his office.

B. The attorney general and his assistants shall devote full time to the duties of the office and shall not directly or indirectly engage in the private practice of law or in an occupation conflicting with such duties, except:

1. Such prohibition shall not apply to special assistants, except that in no instance shall special assistants engage in any private litigation in which the state or an officer thereof in his official capacity is a party.

2. Assistant attorney general may, but in no circumstances shall be required to, represent private clients in pro bono, private civil matters under the following circumstances:

(a) The representation will be conducted exclusively during off hours or while on leave and the attorney will not receive any compensation for such services.

(b) The client is not seeking an award of attorney fees for the services.

(c) The services are for an individual in need of personal legal services who does not have the financial resources to pay for the professional services or for a nonprofit, tax exempt charitable organization formed for the purpose of providing social services to individuals and families.

(d) The representation will not interfere with the performance of any official duties.

(e) The subject matter of pro bono representation is outside of the area of practice to which the attorney is assigned in the attorney general’s office and the activity will not appear to create a conflict of interest.

(f) The activity will not reflect adversely on this state or any of its agencies.

(g) The assistant attorney general’s position will not influence or appear to influence the outcome of any matter.

(h) The activity will not involve assertions that are contrary to the interest or position of this state or any of its agencies.

(i) The activity does not involve a criminal matter or proceeding or any matter in which this state is a party or has a direct or substantial interest.

(j) The activity will not utilize resources that will result in a cost to this state or any of its agencies.

(k) The attorney’s supervisor may require the attorney to submit a prior written request to engage in pro bono work which includes a provision holding the agency harmless from any of the work undertaken by the attorney.

Florida Statutes,Section 27.51 provides:”Each public defender shall serve on a full-time basis and is prohibited fromengaging in the private practice of law while holding office. Assistant public defendersshall give priority and preference to their duties as assistant public defenders andshall not otherwise engage in the practice of criminal law.” (e.s.)

Private practice of Law and Pro Bono Representation.

Posted by Corrupt Courts Administrator at 7:43 AM

 

17 comments:

 

Have had it with cuomo said…

I like Anderson’s vote on Election Day! Great motion!
Everyone should vote on the next election day to DISQUALIFY everyone who currently holds office of any kind. Yep, Andy, that includes you. The thuggery at the attorney general’s office must end. Andy and Elliot can go off and play golf, etc., with Tiger. New Yorkers have had it with spineless, ass-kissing-for-supporters-only corrupt bastards operating under the color of law. I’m a lifelong democrat but will NOT be voting for Andrew Cuomo ever again. September 15, 2010 8:44 AM

Anonymous said…

The Office of Andrew Cuomo is pro pedophiles and that is why he protects his friends such as Bernadette E. Lupinetti, Esq. from Orange County New York. A pimp selling children in child custody cases to be sexually exploited. September 15, 2010 9:08 AM

Anonymous said…

Christine Anderson you rock!

Albany, Andy, Houston

You got a problem!

Paladino won!

September 15, 2010 9:09 AM

Anonymous said…

Christine Anderson you rock!

Albany, Andy, Houston

You got a problem!

Paladino won!

September 15, 2010 9:09 AM

Anonymous said…

Andy and Eliot can take Sheldon & Lippman with them!

The baseball bats are out guys!

September 15, 2010 9:10 AM

Anonymous said…

“THERE IS NO CRUELER TYRANNY THAN THAT WHICH IS OPERATED UNDER THE COVER OF LAW AND WITH THE COLORS OF JUSTICE” September 15, 2010 9:12 AM

Anonymous said…

Bratton advised Corrado that in 2007 he had admitted himself into a psychiatric hospital for serious emotional problems, that he had “suicidal tendencies,” and that he was “warning” her accordingly

what was this guy going to make up paperwork for her, pass it around behind her back………
that is an old one
you guys gotta think of new tricks!

September 15, 2010 9:25 AM

LE said…

Christine, you’re my hero!! Now, let’s ALL go after the AG’s Office full force with our motion’s to disqualify!!!

I can’t wait to see how the AG’s Office responds to my motion and letter to disqualify!!

Best Regards,

LE

September 15, 2010 10:45 AM

Anonymous said…

this is very interesting. will be more interesting to see some real action come from it and best of luck to Christine Anderson.

I’ve been watching these comments about Will Galison being a “plant”. Let me get this straight:

Hoffer is the son-in-law of Zbigniew Brzezinski and therefore a pawn of the CFR and the New World Order

The FBI is the organization that hasn’t done a damn thing for us all this time and has harmed many of us.

Golia is the judge who stole Sunny Sheu’s house from him and had him kidnapped according to an NYPD Officer and you can read about this at the BlackStarNews.com.

Golia may or could be involved in the death / murder of Sunny Sheu and it is absolutely clear that
Golia has some serious problems with the Sunny Sheu case by permitting the Finance Company involved in Illegally “buying back” Sunny’s property from a Fraudulent Buyer that the Finance Company should have never Closed with in the first place and did so for only $1000 when Sunny’s mortgage had been at just over $200,000.

That type of great “under market price” transaction is PER SE SUSPECT to any reputable member of the Judiciary or Oversight or Federal authorities not to mention Sunny had 2 NYPD Officers who were trying to come forward before Golia with evidence from the Criminal prosecution of the Fraud – Fake buyer and Seller in the first place??

So, these three parties are “pissed” at Will Galison, and that makes Galison ……bad?

September 15, 2010 11:53 AM

Eliot Bernstein / Bat Out of Hell / Iviewit said…

Go Christine, I sat on the edge of my seat and wondered when the charge of criminal Title 18 Obstruction and Obstruction of Fed Witness and Obstruction through Conflict would be asserted against the AG Clown Cuomo but I guess it is there subtly in the call for Special Prosecutor and Obligations of those in charge. Still I feel that Court should be put on notice that allowing the conflict is obstruction so if they continue, wham we are reporting it and their felonies to the man, right now the man with no cajones, HoldOff and other appropriate oversight and criminal authorities. Every related case should file this document with criminal authorities with jurisdiction demanding investigation. Where’s the Press???
Who is Will?
Bat Out of Hell on Bat Phone Calling the Troops.
Question for Luisa have you filed to get rid of NY AG Cuomo or filed criminal complaints against the office for their part in the gang raping of your rights and personal liberties to cover up for slimedog millionaire Isaacs?
Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL (yes, two identically named)
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Uview.com, Inc. – DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL
I.C., Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com LLC – DL
Iviewit LLC – DL
Iviewit Corporation – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Corporation
2753 N.W. 34th St.
Boca Raton, Florida 33434-3459
(561) 245.8588 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (561) 245.8588 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (o)
(561) 886.7628 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (561) 886.7628 end_of_the_skype_highlighting (c)
(561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit@iviewit.tv

http://www.iviewit.tv

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress

http://iviewit.tv/wordpresseliot

Other Websites I like:

http://www.deniedpatent.com

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com

http://www.judgewatch.org/index.html

http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com

http://www.corruptcourts.org

http://www.changecourtsnow.com

http://www.makeourofficialsaccountable.com

http://www.parentadvocates.org

http://www.newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com

http://cuomotarp.blogspot.com

http://www.disbarthefloridabar.com

http://www.VoteForGreg.us Greg Fischer

http://www.liberty-candidates.org/greg-fischer/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Vote-For-Greg/111952178833067

http://www.killallthelawyers.ws/law (The Shakespearean Solution)

Also, check out
Eliot’s Testimony at the NY Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings Part 1

and Part 2 @

and
Christine Anderson Whistleblower Testimony @

and Eliot Part 1 – The Iviewit Inventions @
www.wethepeopletv.com

September 15, 2010 2:11 PM

Anonymous said…

Is there anyone else who is going to Federal Court to file for violation of Civil Rights for the failure of the OCA, Disciplinary Commissions, Courts, etc., to protect Constitutionally Protected rights and to do the jobs they are required to do by law and rule?

Just asking.

September 15, 2010 2:15 PM

Anonymous said…

All the Anderson info and action is great. But, if the Feds were really going to “rock” NY as stated over two years ago, you may think they would just show up to this event tomorrow sponsored by the Wall Street Journal featuring Gov Paterson and former Govs Spitzer and Pataki.

Markopoulous contacted Spitzer as AG about Madoff and we all know Frank Brady and Kevin McKeown wrote to Governor Paterson about a Special Prosecutor and Pataki’s links to corruption and likely organized crime are infamous even though the Feds never did anything about it and stuck New Yorkers with this great system

Think the G-Men will show up? Not talking about the Football Giants here either:

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/31797/spitzer-paterson-pataki-all-on-one-great-stage/

September 15, 2010 4:11 PM

Anonymous said…

Has anyone clued the Paladino campaign into this blog and Cuomo’s history of ignoring complaints?

Cuomo’s has done nothing in the four years he’s been AG, and now he is campaigning as someone who is going to clean up the mess he’s been ignoring.

I hope Paladino has the stuff to call him on this.

September 15, 2010 6:16 PM

Anonymous said…

Yes, I hope Paladino takes Cuomo’s mask off and ask him about the sexual abusers he helps. September 15, 2010 7:19 PM

T Finnan said…

Answer to 2:15; yes within this week. Answer to 6:16; yes; Paladino is aware. AG Cuomo has covered up corruption with his office. CuomoTARP.blogspot.com exposes and will expose more about Cuomo. Check out: Two faces as Cuomo changes pay to play to indirect payment; or, Cuomo as Gollum; or, the Cuomo babuska doll and its faces of Cuomo; or, Cuomo’s silver spoon removed; or,Cuomo drenched in Albany Swamp Slime; or,Cuomo, 1.2 billion fraud, is it the Peter or Dilbert principle; or, Cuomo as Keystone cop; and Can Cuomo clean his nest. September 15, 2010 7:25 PM

Eliot said…

Ok, if none of you NuYookers have the cojones (excuse my vulgarity) to arrest Cuomo, Spitzer and some Lawyers & Judges who are actually criminals I guess I will just have to fly there again and citizen arrest their criminal butts. First, I would get the kids and huddle them together for a protest party. We would need signs so that we could march on their lawns first and greet them at dawn with video cameras and loud questions demanding public answers. Then follow them to work with a set of leg iron and cuffs, demand they turn themselves in or else, when they run like the cowards they are, chase them down, tackle them and bring them in for prosecution of their felonies despite name, elitist delusion, position or title. In New York we don’t give a damn who or what you are, if you ripped us off we want blood and all our money back. Wait, you NuYookers really want a Cubbie fan to clean your shit hole of corruption, I guess if necessary, I will but I thought more of you.

Next, once we have chained them and cuffed them and although my personal desire would be to torture them for those they have tortured and wronged in their crimes but I am not them, so I will leave that to the long arm of justice to decide and a jury of their peers. If Justice fails to do justice claiming others above the law or immune why just grab their butt, cuff them and take them to the next available processing center for felons, you got rights NuYookers, use them.

http://www.newyorkinjurylaw-blog.com/2010/05/citizen%E2%80%99s-arrest-new-york-personal-injury-attorney

The definition is simple enough: a “citizen’s arrest” is an arrest by any civilian (not necessarily a “citizen” in some states) who does not have official government authority to make an arrest. In fact “citizen arrests” are legal in every state, though state laws with respect to the situations in which such arrests are permissible vary.

As a general rule, every state permits a civilian to make an arrest if a “felony” (a very serious crime) is being perpetrated in the presence of that civilian. Where differences among the states occur is in matters involving “misdemeanors” (less serious crimes), and where a felony is not witnessed by the civilian.

Since 2007, Karl Rove has (at least) three times been the subject of attempted citizen’s arrests. In Iowa last July, a group of four attempted to place him under citizen’s arrest when he went to Des Moines to speak at a fundraiser. As it would turn out, the four would be citizen-constables were themselves arrested. They were subsequently cited for trespassing and released. The Cedar Rapids Gazette reported that two of the four had attempted a citizen’s arrest of Rove one year previously. That time they were also arrested, but were released without charges.

In October, a Code Pink protester in San Francisco tried to slap the cuffs on Rove for treason while he participated in a panel discussion for the Mortgage Bankers Association’s annual convention. Code Pink’s official release on the incident (which contains the Arrest Complaint against Rove) states that five protesters were removed from the building but not charged.

So, can people legally perform citizen’s arrests? The short answer is yes. In virtually all states, private individuals can lawfully arrest someone whom they witness committing a felony.

New York State Consolidated Laws hold that: Any person may arrest another person (a) for a felony when the latter has in fact committed such felony, and (b) for any offense when the latter has in fact committed such offense in his presence.New York Penal Code

§ 140.05 Arrest without a warrant; in general.

A person who has committed or is believed to have committed an offense and who is at liberty within the state may, under circumstances prescribed in this article, be arrested for such offense although no warrant of arrest therefor has been issued and although no criminal action therefor has yet been commenced in any criminal court.

§ 140.30 Arrest without a warrant; by any person; when and where authorized.

1. Subject to the provisions of subdivision two, any person may arrest another person (a) for a felony when the latter has in fact committed such felony, and (b) for any offense when the latter has in fact committed such offense in his presence.

2. Such an arrest, if for a felony, may be made anywhere in the state. If the arrest is for an offense other than a felony, it may be made only in the county in which such offense was committed.

§ 140.35 Arrest without a warrant; by person acting other than as a police officer or a peace officer; when and how made.

1. A person may arrest another person for an offense pursuant to section 140.30 at any hour of any day or night.

2. Such person must inform the person whom he is arresting of the reason for such arrest unless he encounters physical resistance, flight or other factors rendering such procedure impractical.

3. In order to effect such an arrest, such person may use such physical force as is justifiable pursuant to subdivision four of section

35.30 of the penal law.

§ 140.40 Arrest without a warrant; by person acting other than as a police officer or a peace officer; procedure after arrest.

1. A person making an arrest pursuant to section 140.30 must without unnecessary delay deliver or attempt to deliver the person arrested to the custody of an appropriate police officer, as defined in subdivision five. For such purpose, he may solicit the aid of any police officer and the latter, if he is not himself an appropriate police officer, must assist in delivering the arrested person to an appropriate officer. If the arrest is for a felony, the appropriate police officer must, upon receiving custody of the arrested person, perform all recording, fingerprinting and other preliminary police duties required in the particular case. In any case, the appropriate police officer, upon receiving custody of the arrested person, except as otherwise provided in subdivisions two and three, must bring him, on behalf of the arresting person, before an appropriate local criminal court, as defined in subdivision five, and the arresting person must without unnecessary delay file an appropriate accusatory instrument with such court.

2. If (a) the arrest is for an offense other than a class A, B, C or D felony or a violation of section 130.25, 130.40, 205.10, 205.17, 205.19 or 215.56 of the penal law and (b) owing to unavailability of a local criminal court the appropriate police officer having custody of the arrested person is unable to bring him before such a court with reasonable promptness, the arrested person must be dealt with in the manner prescribed in subdivision three of section 140.20, as if he had been arrested by a police officer.

3. If the arrest is for an offense other than a class A, B, C or D felony or a violation of section 130.25, 130.40, 205.10, 205.17, 205.19 or 215.56 of the penal law, the arrested person need not be brought before a local criminal court, as provided in subdivision one, and the procedure may instead be as follows:

(a) An appropriate police officer may issue and serve an appearance ticket upon the arrested person and release him from custody, as prescribed in subdivision two of section 150.20; or

(b) The desk officer in charge at the appropriate police officer’s station, county jail or police headquarters, or any of his superior officers, may, in such place, fix pre-arraignment bail and, upon deposit thereof, issue and serve an appearance ticket upon the arrested person and release him from custody, as prescribed in section 150.30.

4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a police officer is not required to take an arrested person into custody or to take any other action prescribed in this section on behalf of the arresting person if he has reasonable cause to believe that the arrested person did not commit the alleged offense or that the arrest was otherwise unauthorized.

5. If a police officer takes an arrested juvenile offender into custody, the police officer shall immediately notify the parent or other person legally responsible for his care or the person with whom he is domiciled, that the juvenile offender has been arrested, and the location of the facility where he is being detained.

6. As used in this section:

(a) An “appropriate police officer” means one who would himself be authorized to make the arrest in question as a police officer pursuant to section 140.10;

(b) An “appropriate local criminal court” means one with which an accusatory instrument charging the offense in question may properly be filed pursuant to the provisions of section 100.55.

Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Inventor Supports Terence Finnan’s CuomoTarp Blog Assertions Regarding the Corrupt Andrew Cuomo Attorney General of New York

Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Inventor Supports Terence Finnan’s CuomoTarp Blog Assertions Regarding the Corrupt Andrew Cuomo Attorney General of New York.

CuomoTARP @ http://cuomotarp.blogspot.com reprint courtesy of T. Finnan.

Cuomo’s TARP

Exposing rampant corruption in the NY State and NY Federal Courts and Government covered up by Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, who defends the corrupt in both State and Federal actions, when he should protect the People. This lifts the cover off rather than place a TARP over (cover-up).
TARP stands for TOXIC ATTORNEYS and REPROBATES PROTECTOR

 

Andrew Cuomo provides us with another babuska doll where he appears as the Roman God Janus. “Cuomo’s campaign to the center has also infuriated the left, and at the victory party for the likely Attorney General nominee, Eric Schneiderman, jubilation was mixed with an eagerness to rub Cuomo’s nose in it.”
Meanwhile, “Carl Paladino — as a more plausible, if extremely longshot, vessel for a “mad as hell” anti-Establishment campaign against the”status Cuomo’, ” will provide no quarter for Cuomo’s clean up promises.
Poor Andrew Gollum Cuomo wanted to be Godlike, and chose Janus, whose two faces point in opposite directions.   The god-like Andrew’s one smiling face ignored all the corruption while he was Attorney General and his other smiling face promises to clean up the same corruption.
We open with Cuomo’s promises from his website Cuomo2010 in blue: 

1. Clean Up Albany

We must restore honor and integrity to government.
We must restore honor and integrity to government, with tough new ethics standards, expanded disclosure requirements, independent investigators to root out and punish corruption

Now, Cuomo has a second chance on September 17 clean his own nest and to restore honor and integrity to his AG office.  While his staff protected and put the Cuomo TARP over NY state employees covering up for connected attorney, Allen Issacs, with their prior Federal Court filing, Cuomo on September 17 can now root out and punish corruption with the same action now again before the Federal Court.

Here’s the story:  Ms. Luisa Esposito fought back against the connected insider and sexual predator, Alan Issacs, in part with this recording.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPIxOiuT9Q&feature=related

Ms.Esposito was stymied by the corruption and official misconduct of various NY State and City employees named in her Federal suit.   Cuomo’s office chose in the prior Federal suit to defend the acts of the corrupt, rather than “root out and punish the corruption.” Now, Ms. Esposito’s is asking to reopen her Federal suit with new information and Judge Shira Scheindlin is giving Cuomo’s office a chance to answer by September 17.

Andrew, did you and your office err by condoning and/or obstructing criminal punishment for the following acts described in the Federal action?   Here’s the quote from June 1, 2010 Order of  “The First Dept. Disciplinary Committee[which} charged respondent (Issacs) with professional misconduct including making unwanted sexual advances to LE.  Defendant, Issacs, committed Felony Level Sexual Abuse, Coercion And Soliciting Sex From His Client, Obstruction of Justice, etc., these crimes were reported to Manhattan Special Victims Squad, and listed As "Felony Level Sexual  Abuse"; there was an arrest warrant out for Defendant Allen Issacs, which the Police Department never acted upon because, "favors were called".

Here's what to do, Andrew:  In your answer on September 17, before Federal Judge Scheindlin:
1. Support Ms. Esposito's application to Reopen.
2. Say you still claim immunity for all State employees for their official actions, but only for actions which carried out "your" and State policy to root out and punish corruption

3. Say any acts by State or City employees that did not carry out official policy and were a cover-up are not subject to immunity from Esposito's suit.

The above E-mailed to Cuomo 9/12/2010

 

Andrew Cuomo Appears On Another Babuska Doll As Captain Of Keystone Cops

We open another Cuomo Babushka doll and inside is Andrew in a Police uniform with a badge saying Keystone Cop Captain.  Sadly, the Keystone State is Pennsylvania, but that doesn't prevent Andrew from happily smiling. 

"A New York state judge has tossed out the felony convictions of two former Marsh & McLennan Cos. executives after finding that the state attorney general's office had failed to turn over to the defense potentially exculpatory evidence, including some 700,000 documents obtained during a related civil proceeding."

Judge "Yates did not buy what he called the "theoretical argument" that 'in the abstract,' the two  [Cuomo] bureaus’ are separate and distinct entities operating in disconnected spheres’.”  Keystone Captain Cuomo was claiming his right hand didn’t know what his left was doing. But the judge wrote,  “[O]ne office, under the control of one prosecutor is authorized to prosecute Martin Act violations by civil and/or criminal prosecution. Nowhere in this statutory authority conferred upon the Attorney General in either the Executive Law or the General Business Law is there a division of authority.”

Richard L. Spinogatti and Robert J. Cleary of Proskauer Rose represented Gilman whose conviction was overturned.   But Keystone Captain Cuomo assuredly was not influenced by Proskauer contributions to his campaign.

The losers were the NY taxpayers who funded this Keystone Cop Farce.  Among the winners were Andrew Cuomo and Proskauer Rose.   Whether justice was served is lost in this farce.

 

Was Cuomo MIA With A $1.2 Billion Per Year Fraud: Was It The Peter Principle, The Dilbert Principle, Or Cuomo’s TARP?

Federal probe:
“The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced the probe Thursday”
“Medicaid payments to nine state institutions for the developmentally disabled, after the Poughkeepsie Journal revealed the facilities had reimbursement rates of $4,556 per day for each of 1,400 residents.”
“State officials have said the actual cost of care is only about one-third the rate, and that much of the $1.2 billion in federal matching funds every year supports other state programs for the disabled.” 

Where was Cuomo and his office?   This is fraud, because State Officials say it costs only a third of the claimed $ 1.2 billion amount or $400 million a year.   Are Cuomo and his office asleep, incompetent or covering up (the CuomoTARP)?

Has Cuomo risen to his “Peter Principle” level of incompetence? Or, has Cuomo risen from his failures at HUD under theDilbert Principleto Attorney General?    Or has Cuomo kept his TARP covering up this immense fraud by State employees and political hacks?

Andrew, since “specifically, the federal agency … pays half the rate as part of a 50-50 state-federal match, where is NY State’s $1.2 billion dollar per year share going? And how much of the state’s share is being shifted onto Local County Tax bills? How can State employees committing such fraud be retained and not prosecuted?

This blog continues again after my partial recovery following my knee replacement surgery due to an auto accident and complications resulting from that surgery, which made it difficult to sit before a computer. This post is in several parts with the letter to Cuomo and his opponents below (mailed on 8/24/10) in this post and the attachments detailing action in US Supreme Court in following posts.

Letter:                                                                August 24, 2010

Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General and Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General
at The Capital, Albany NY  12224

Carl Paladino
at Paladino for the People, PO Box 447, Buffalo, NY 14205

Rick Lazio
at Lazio 2010, Box 4818, NY, NY 10158

Re: Intolerable corruption, abuse, criminal conduct, Cuomo’s duty under New York Law
Demand for protection and prosecution

Dear Andrew Cuomo, Barbara Underwood, Carl Paladino and Rick Lazio:

It’s intolerable, Andrew Cuomo. My hospitalization on 6/15/10 for total knee replacement and the subsequent medical complications was aggravated by the depraved criminal acts intended to silence me and prevent filing of an action involving the AG’s Office before US Supreme Court.           Dateline follows:

6/15/10 T. Finnan has total knee replacement surgery at Albany Medical,

6/17/10 T. Finnan in great pain and unable to walk is to be transferred to Schenectady Sunnyview Hospital. An ambulance transport is requested by T Finnan.

6/17/21 The nurse comes into his room to get T. Finnan ready to be discharged to two men with his “wife” who are waiting to transport him after discharge.

6/17/10 T. Finnan refuses discharge, telling nurse that he is not married and will leave only by arranged ambulance to Sunnyview Hospital.

6/17/10 Ambulance takes T. Finnan to Sunnyview where deep vein thrombosis and atrial fibrillation and low blood pressure are confirmed.

6/24/10 T. Finnan arranges his departure from Sunnyview and the simultaneous transport of his auto from Albany Medical to his home, 120 miles north of Albany. As T. Finnan is leaving Sunnyview, he learns that two men arrived just then arranging for his discharge to them, but T. Finnan leaves with his prearranged transport.

6/25/10 Visiting Nurse comes to his home and arranges home care and physical therapy at home.

6/26/10 Anonymous call comes to my home to tell me to go on line and check what happened to Sunny Sheu. Not recognizing the name, Sunny Sheu, I go on line and determine Sunny Sheu just died from head injury. T. Finnan becomes distraut and fearful because in his present condition he can hardly walk with his walker and he arranges for a Taxi to Plattsburgh NY Hospital.     T. Finnan decides it’s unsafe for him alone at his home and after a follow up appointment with his surgeon, leaves for the State of Georgia and begins Physical Therapy in a safe environment . Both T. Finnan and his family felt that there was danger to his family, if T. Finnan was present at their homes from such characters.

Unluckily for opposing parties, although T. Finnan was unable to personally finalize, serve and send court papers to US Supreme Court, T. Finnan had left that to another before 6/15/10, who filed and served the papers with Supreme Court and docket number 10-70.

Questions for Cuomo:

Were Cuomo or his supporters unhappy with my  CuomoTarp.blogspot.com blog?

Was that my ex-wife at the hospital on 6/17/10?

Were Cuomo or his supporters unhappy with my demands to prosecute criminals whether or not they’re judges or lawyers?

Does Cuomo ignore the corruption reported on ExposeCorruptCourts.blogspot.com and believe his duty is to defend crooked lawyers and judges?

Required action:

Right now, Andrew Cuomo, call your client, Judge Kevin K. Ryan, and tell him you can not represent a crooked judge and you’ll indict him based upon my criminal complaint filed in your office, if he doesn’t immediately rectify his errors.     Andrew Cuomo, you’re aware for almost four years of the horrors of corrupt NY courts and the malfeasances of the Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Attorney Disciplinary Committees.

Andrew Cuomo, begin with Penal law 195.00 Official misconduct: A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: 2. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.

Andrew Cuomo, prosecuting crooked state employees according to above Penal Law  is clearly inherent in the nature of your office. There is no judicial immunity by the NY Constitution: “The power of grand juries to inquire into the wilful misconduct in office of public officers … shall never be suspended or impaired by law.”

Were those your goons at the Hospital, Andrew Cuomo, or goons from Marsha Kameron and her attorney, Ara Asadourian?

Mr. Paladino and Mr. Lazio, court corruption steals from the people and deprives them of honest government. Hold Cuomo accountable. See Exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com and this blog, CuomoTarp.blogspot.com/ for continuing documentation.

Terence Finnan
PO Box 354
Keene NY 12942

Attached:
7/30/9 Letter to Tembeckjian and Commission on Judicial Conduct.

5/4/8 Letter to Judges Plumadore and Ryan with medical records, discharge date and court calendar showing 4/25/8 scheduled court date.

Appellate Affidavit detailing Judge Ryan’s FAX Notice to me when I had no fax receiver and perjury by Marsha Kameron.

Criminal Complaint against Robert Tembeckjian.

Criminal Complaint against Judge Kevin K. Ryan.

Condensed US Supreme Court Filing in July 2010, with criminal complaints against Marsha Kameron filed with US Justice Dept.

P.S. In re “Sunny Sheu”, contact NYC Police, 109 Precinct.

CC: Governor Paterson, FBI-Albany, Essex County DA, Press Republican, others

 

Cuomo’s Silver Spoon Removed With Hard Knocks Behind The Finance Woodshed

The Cuomo apologists have dismissed the smoking gun of Cuomo’s HUD press release with “he was well intentioned.” Some advice for Cuomo:  1. payday loans are not wise things; 2. you and who else expects income tax revenue to go up this year in NY;  and what happens if anticipated income tax revenue decreases?  So,now, what are Cuomo’s well intentions for the following anticipated borrowings based only on anticipated income or to fund current outlays by NY State for the remainder of this year listed below:? 

5/20/10       Local Government Assistance Bonds  $ 1/4 billion     borrow money for present outlays
5/26/10       Service contract Revenue                  $ 1/2+ billion    borrow money from future income
5/26/10       Personal Income Tax Revenue           $ 1/2- billion     borrow money expecting tax receipts
June 2010    Personal Income Tax Bonds              $ 1.2 billion      borrow money expecting tax receipts
Aug 2010     Personal Income Tax Bonds             $ 1/2- billion     borrow money expecting tax receipts
Aug 2010      Dormitory Revenue Bonds              $ 77.1 million    those students will cough it up
Sept 2010      Personal Income Tax Bonds          $ 1/2- billion     borrow money expecting tax receipts
Nov 2010      Personal Income Tax Bonds          $ 1.7 billion     after the election, so the suckers won’t know

Does Cuomo expect income tax revenues to rise or remain constant to cover this projected borrowing or will the difference be made up by more General Obligation borrowing, which wasn’t described in the above NY State Borrowings this year, but which is huge.

How is Cuomo responding to Sheldon Silver’s millionaire’s tax to cover shortfalls when that idea resulted in reduced tax revenues in Maryland and New Jersey .

Did Cuomo fail in Federal Court to defend Gov. Paterson’s one day furlough for State workers out of his incompetence or should we give him credit for a clever subterfuge to fool the voters that he and Paterson wanted to reduce expenses and stand up to the unions, but the Federal Court wouldn’t let them.  (The subject of future blog and a definite problem for Cuomo if elected; is Cuomo going to ask the new AG to correct his earlier error and its resulting federal court precedent?)

Here’s the finance lesson that was not included in Andrew’s silver spoon childhood and his entitlement training;  and, that is painfully learned by many young people.

Look at your credit card statement.   While your balance rises, you ignore the rising interest charged each month.  But, your income is decreasing and your expenditures are increasing.  This was no problem, because you just paid the minimum amount due each month, but, now, your interest charged approaches your minimum payment.  You’ve reached your credit limit and the bank wants a higher minimum payment and won’t advance you more money for present expenditures.    You cry out to your parents, why is this happening to me; the bank’s mean; help me; how can I live without my needed purchases; and you whine on.

The painful welcome behind the Finance Woodshed is received by Andrew and other such children to the “Brave New World of Responsible Finances.”  Neither your parents nor the Chinese want to loan us money; they want a lot more for a bad risk.  And forget about the Greeks and Spaniards; they are looking for money also.

Andrew, putting on the garb of a fiscal conservative to fool the suckers won’t help.  Are going to ridicule Sheldon Silver’s fiscal stupidity?   And, Andrew, what about the Working Family’s nomination; are going to embrace the unions and Acorn and then tell us you’re for reform and ending corruption?

And Andrew, brace yourself,  maybe, go home to your parents,  the bond rating agencies* will wise up to your (and Silver’s) words and deeds; maybe before the election.

Andrew, do you think, as governor, you can pull your TARP to cover up even more corruption and mishandled money?

*Standard & Poor’s, Fitch, Moody’s
 

Cuomo And Fiscal Disaster: The Still Smoking Gun

Andrew Cuomo’s gun which is still smoking and it’s firing which caused our economic recession/depression is found copied below.   It’s the official HUD release and the important parts are in red.   I’ve done the arithmetic for the financially challenged Cuomo:   50% of $2.4 trillion dollars is $1.2 trillion dollars in mortgages, which Federal TARP was supposed to bail out.
Verdict:  Andrew Cuomo: Guilty of gross fiscal ineptitude leading to economic disaster; a clear and present danger to NY finances; sentenced to pay back from his campaign treasury all those “disproportionately benefited minorities and city residents,” who Andrew Cuomo had claimed to help with his mortgages.
They’ll need a strong Kool-aid for those who would nominate him for Governor. 

HUD Archives: News Releases


 

HUD No. 99-131
Further Information: For Release
In the Washington, DC area: 202/708-0685 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 202/708-0685 end_of_the_skype_highlighting Thursday
Or contact your local HUD office July 29, 1999

 

CUOMO ANNOUNCES ACTION TO PROVIDE $2.4 TRILLION IN MORTGAGES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 28.1 MILLION FAMILIES

See full chart of higher goals by metropolitan area

WASHINGTON – Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo today announced a policy to require the nation’s two largest housing finance companies to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages over the next 10 years to provide affordable housing for about 28.1 million low- and moderate-income families.
Cuomo said the historic action by HUD raises the required percentage of mortgage loans for low- and moderate-income families that finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must buy from the current 42 percent of their total purchases to a new high of 50 percent , a19 percent increase – in the year 2001. The percentage will first increase to 48 percent in 2000.
Commenting on the action, President Clinton said: “During the last six and a half years, my Administration has put tremendous emphasis on promoting homeowners and making housing more affordable for all Americans. Our housing programs and institutions have been a success. Today, the homeownership rate is at an all-time high, with more than 66 percent of all American families owning their homes. Today, we take another significant step. Raising the GSEs goals will help us generate increased momentum in addressing the nation’s housing needs. I congratulate HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo and the entire HUD team on their efforts in this important area.”
“This action will transform the lives of millions of families across our country by giving them new opportunities to buy homes or move into apartments with rents they can afford,” Cuomo said. “It will strengthen our economy and create jobs by stimulating more home construction, it will help ease the terrible shortage of affordable housing plaguing far too many communities, and it will help reduce the huge homeownership gap dividing whites from minorities and suburbs from cities.”
The mortgage purchase requirement for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – known as the Affordable Housing Goals – was last set by HUD in 1995, under a requirement mandated by Congress. The goals came up for renewal this year, and HUD had the choice of leaving them unchanged, lowering them, or raising them. In addition to helping low- and moderate-income families, the new initiative will also increase the affordable housing goals for loans made to underserved areas and will raise the goal for mortgages to benefit families with very low incomes.
Under the higher goals, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will buy an additional $488.3 billion in mortgages that will be used to provide affordable housing for 7 million more low- and moderate-income families over the next 10 years. Those new mortgages and families are over and above the $1.9 trillion in mortgages for 21.1 million families that would have been generated if the current goals had been retained.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages for both individual homes and for apartment buildings.
Fannie Mae Chairman Franklin D. Raines joined Cuomo at the news conference in which Cuomo announced the HUD action. Raines committed Fannie Mae to reaching HUD’s increased Affordable Housing Goals.
Others attending the news conference to express support for the new Affordable Housing Goals were National Association of Home Builders President Charles Ruma and Enterprise Foundation CEO Bart Harvey.
In addition, higher Affordable Housing Goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been sought by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, FM Watch and other groups.
Congress gave HUD the responsibility of regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because the two companies are Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) that were chartered by Congress. The policy announced today will be implemented by HUD regulations. Such regulations go into effect after review by Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, along with a period of full public comment.
The GSEs buy mortgages issued by banks, thrift institutions and other mortgage lenders, and then package the loans and sell them to investors as mortgage-backed securities. When Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy the mortgages from lenders, they provide the lenders with the cash needed to issue new mortgages.
Congress has given GSEs special advantages – such an exemption from all state and local taxes except property taxes, and an exemption from Securities and Exchange Commission registration requirements. In addition, the ties of the GSEs to government has helped them get the highest credit rating to reduce their borrowing costs, and has boosted investor confidence in the two companies, thereby helping to increase their earnings. The Treasury Department reports that the benefits of federal sponsorship are worth almost $6 billion annually to the GSEs.
The GSEs are publicly chartered to provide broad public benefits. Congress, through Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s Charter Acts and the 1992 GSE Act, required that the two GSEs, in return for their publicly provided benefits, extend the benefits of the secondary mortgage market to a broad range of Americans. These include low- and moderate-income families, first-time homebuyers, and residents of communities underserved by mortgage credit.
If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fail to make a good faith effort to achieve the Affordable Housing Goals set by HUD, the Secretary of HUD has the authority to impose civil money penalties of up to $10,000 for each day the failure occurs.
Families are considered as having low and moderate incomes if they make no more than the area median income, which varies by community. The national average for the median income is $47,800.
In addition to raising the low- and moderate-income goal from 42 percent to 50 percent, HUD acted to raise two other Congressionally mandated goals. A special affordable housing goal for families with very low incomes and low incomes (those with less than 60 percent and 80 percent of area median) jumps from the current 14 percent to 20 percent (a 43 percent increase). In addition, a geographically targeted goal for underserved areas (central cities, rural areas, and underserved communities based on income and minority concentration) goes from 24 percent to 31 percent (a 29 percent increase).
The increase in the Affordable Housing Goals is part of the Clinton Administration’s overall strategy to increase homeownership and the supply of affordable rental housing in the United States.
America’s homeownership rate hit a record annual high in 1998, with 66.3 percent of all households owning their own homes. A total of 69.1 million families owned homes at the end of 1998 – 7.3 million more than when President Clinton took office in 1993. However, the homeownership rate varies a great deal between cities and suburbs, and between whites and minorities, as the chart below shows:

HOMEOWNERSHIP RATE 1998
NATION OVERALL 66.3
WHITE (non-Hispanic) 72.6
BLACK (non-Hispanic) 46.1
HISPANIC 44.7
CENTRAL CITIES 50.0
SUBURBS 73.2

The higher Affordable Housing Goals will disproportionately benefit minorities and city residents, helping to close the homeownership gap, Cuomo said.
In addition, the higher Affordable Housing Goals will help ease the crisis-level shortage of affordable housing documented by a HUD report issued in March. That report found that the number of families earning less than 50 percent of the area median income and either paying over half their incomes for rent or living in severely substandard housing remains at the record level of about 5.3 million

 

The Andrew Cuomo Male Babushka Doll; See His Smiling Face

Cuomo announces for Governorwith video saying, “Andrew Cuomo works for us … for my business and for my family;”  “I’m Andrew Cuomo, and I work for you;” and “Together, we can make New York great again. Let’s get to work.” And on his campaign website, which includes titles like “New York doesn’t work,” Cuomo calls for “honest, effective government.” 

If Cuomo wanted honest and effective government, why did and does he defend crooked NY Lawyers, crooked Judges and crooked State employees and not criminally prosecute them?  Here follows a small sample of actions defended by Cuomo involving only the First Department of the NY Courts’ Four Departments which were grouped together at ExposeCorruptCourts.blogspot.com

1. (07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al
2. (07cv11196) Bernstein, et al v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al 3. (07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al
4. (06cv05169) McNamara v The State of New York, et al
5. (08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al
6. (08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al
7. (08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al
8. (08cv04053) Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al
9. (08cv04438) McCormick v The State of New York, et al

10.(08cv05455) Capogrosso v The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al
When Cuomo says he works for you and your family and business, what family/business is he referring to?  The Colombian Lawyers Association, or the lawyers with actions against NY State who contributed to his campaign treasury, or Wall Street’s Goldman, who he hasn’t criminally prosecuted? After blowing away $1.2 trillion dollars, is Cuomo now going to tell us he learned something about government finances?
Is Cuomo telling us, he’ll carry on his father’s legacy, by not prosecuting Chief Judge Lippman and his Appellate buddy Judge Ramos for stealing $40 million dollars?

Andrew Cuomo is the male image on the NY babushka (matryoshkas) doll. Whereas in Russia, many began with  Mikhail Gorbachev, then Leonid Brezhnev, then Nikita Khrushchev, Josef Stalin and finally the smallest, Vladimir Lenin, the NY doll begins with Andrew Cuomo’s smiling face announcing for Governor and descends through Andrew’s various incarnations to an ultimate depravity.  Stay tuned here, as we look within the NY Cuomo Matryoshkas Doll.
(sneak preview,  A young Andrew nursing on the milk of corruption in the arms of the Eliot Spitzer doll)

 

Oh where, oh where is Andrew gone?

Oh where or where is our Andrew Cuomo gone?
Oh where, oh where can he be?
With his governor announcement time so shortly
and his camapign treasury so full;
Oh where, oh where can he be. 

Paterson acts;
while Andrew dithers;
his legacy wanes;
as budget pains wax.

Poor Andrew, like Hamlet, suffers the arrows of outrageous spending excesses;
while waiting for his inherited acumen to arrive.

And what shall he do in the Federal court action;
be something for the People,
or something for the unions and nothing for a solution?

Oh where, oh where are you, Andrew?
Cuomo: Elect me and Discover My Budget Solution

MLK paraphrased:  “Judge a man not on the color of his skin or his father’s identity, but on the content of his character.” 

Is it time to sympathize with Gollum Cuomo?  He’s entitled as his legacy to be governor.   He wants to be our messiah governor, restoring the legacy left by his father.  What should he do with the hearing on the restraining order about the NY budget?   Will he grant a personal hearing to the union bosses, if they or their attorneys contribute to his treasury and then purposely bungle the action on their behalf and blame it on the court.  Or follow the directives of Gov. Paterson.   How much money have union connected lawyers or unions contributed to his campaign treasury?   Will he use his 11th Amendment Argument against a federal district court as having no jurisdiction as he did in federal action 08-cv-0259 and in so many other cases against NY State that he defended in federal court?  Or is that argument reserved only for those who don’t contribute to his treasury?


What is Gollum Cuomo’s solution to the NY budget crisis?  Must we wait until after he’s governor to find out?  Does Gollum Cuomo believe the voters of NY were happy with the Bush legacy presidency, and receptive to a Cuomo legacy governorship?
Please, Andrew Cuomo; forget the RING and your childhood silver spoon; tell us your budget solution and how it is different from your proclamation to give $1.2 trillion dollars in mortgages to those without resources to pay them back ?

 

Cuomo Bathes In His Own Hypocrisy In Buffalo

In Buffalo, the bully, Cuomo, has grabbed all the ‘pay to play’ marbles for himself, because his rules are for others and not for himself, as he is predestined by his father’s legacy.  Comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli,  learned about  Cuomo’s “do as I say, not as I do.” When will Cuomo appoint an independent prosecutor to probe his office’s and his personal dealings with  Global Strategies Group?
Doesn’t the quote,  “Today’s action is yet more evidence that kickbacks and corruption contaminated the Retirement Fund,” said Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC’ Division of Enforcement,” apply equally to Cuomo’s campaign funds which are kickbacks and corruption to Cuomo and his office and are received from attorneys with actions opposed to NY State’s interests.  (described in the prior blog post, seen just below, dated 4/27/20100) 

Andrew bathes in the Buffalo News headline, “Cuomo widens probe of  pay to play schemes,” when he should have apologized “mea culpa” for his own pay to play indirect payment scheme.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Cuomo Can Clean Sexual Abuse From His Own Nest on 9/17/2010 Before He Cleans Up Albany.” Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Inventor supports T. Finnan in efforts to expose Cuomo’s part in cover up and aiding & abetting lawyer molester Allen H. Issacs, Esq. in assault on Luisa Esposito. Why is Cuomo using the AG’s office to defend Public Office Defendants in the crimes and not to protect Luisa Esposito, Cover-Up & Obstruction by AG Cuomo!!!

“Cuomo Can Clean Sexual Abuse From His Own Nest on 9/17/2010 Before He Cleans Up Albany.” Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Inventor supports T. Finnan in efforts to expose Cuomo’s part in cover up and aiding & abetting lawyer molester Allen H. Issacs, Esq. in assault on Luisa Esposito. Why is Cuomo using the AG’s office to defend Public Office Defendants in the crimes and not to protect Luisa Esposito, Cover-Up & Obstruction by AG Cuomo!!!

Reprinted from @ http://cuomotarp.blogspot.com/2010/09/cuomo-can-clean-sexual-abuse-from-his.html by T. Finnan

CuomoTARP

Cuomo’s TARP

Exposing rampant corruption in the NY State and NY Federal Courts and Government covered up by Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, who defends the corrupt in both State and Federal actions, when he should protect the People. This lifts the cover off rather than place a TARP over (cover-up).
TARP stands for TOXIC ATTORNEYS and REPROBATES PROTECTOR

 

We open with Cuomo’s promises from his website Cuomo2010 in blue: 

1. Clean Up Albany

We must restore honor and integrity to government.
We must restore honor and integrity to government, with tough new ethics standards, expanded disclosure requirements, independent investigators to root out and punish corruption

Now, Cuomo has a second chance on September 17 clean his own nest and to restore honor and integrity to his AG office.  While his staff protected and put the Cuomo TARP over NY state employees covering up for connected attorney, Allen Issacs, with their prior Federal Court filing, Cuomo on September 17 can now root out and punish corruption with the same action now again before the Federal Court.

Here’s the story:  Ms. Luisa Esposito fought back against the connected insider and sexual predator, Alan Issacs, in part with this recording.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VPIxOiuT9Q&feature=related

Ms.Esposito was stymied by the corruption and official misconduct of various NY State and City employees named in her Federal suit.   Cuomo’s office chose in the prior Federal suit to defend the acts of the corrupt, rather than “root out and punish the corruption.” Now, Ms. Esposito’s is asking to reopen her Federal suit with new information and Judge Shira Scheindlin is giving Cuomo’s office a chance to answer by September 17.

Andrew, did you and your office err by condoning and/or obstructing criminal punishment for the following acts described in the Federal action?   Here’s the quote from June 1, 2010 Order of  “The First Dept. Disciplinary Committee[which} charged respondent (Issacs) with professional misconduct including making unwanted sexual advances to LE.  Defendant, Issacs, committed Felony Level Sexual Abuse, Coercion And Soliciting Sex From His Client, Obstruction of Justice, etc., these crimes were reported to Manhattan Special Victims Squad, and listed As “Felony Level Sexual  Abuse”; there was an arrest warrant out for Defendant Allen Issacs, which the Police Department never acted upon because, “favors were called”.

Here’s what to do, Andrew:  In your answer on September 17, before Federal Judge Scheindlin:
1. Support Ms. Esposito’s application to Reopen.
2. Say you still claim immunity for all State employees for their official actions, but only for actions which carried out “your” and State policy to root out and punish corruption

3. Say any acts by State or City employees that did not carry out official policy and were a cover-up are not subject to immunity from Esposito’s suit.

The above E-mailed to Cuomo 9/12/2010

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Andrew Cuomo Appears On Another Babuska Doll As Captain Of Keystone Cops. Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Inventor Supports T. Finnan’s Claims re Proskauer Rose partners Richard Spinogatti and Robert J. Cleary. Proskauer sued in Trillion $$$$ Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit involving a car bombing of a US Citizen. More @ www.iviewit.tv

Andrew Cuomo Appears On Another Babuska Doll As Captain Of Keystone Cops. Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Inventor Supports T. Finnan’s Claims re Proskauer Rose partners Richard Spinogatti and Robert J. Cleary. Proskauer sued in Trillion $$$$ Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit involving a car bombing of a US Citizen. More @ www.iviewit.tv

September 9th, 2010

Post from http://cuomotarp.blogspot.com written by T. Finnan

CuomoTARP

Remove Cuomo’s TARP

Exposing rampant corruption in the NY State and NY Federal Courts and Government covered up by Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, who defends the corrupt in both State and Federal actions, when he should protect the People. This lifts the cover off rather than place a TARP over (cover-up).
TARP stands for TOXIC ATTORNEYS and REPROBATES PROTECTOR

 

Wednesday, September 8, 2010
 

Andrew Cuomo Appears On Another Babuska Doll As Captain Of Keystone Cops

We open another Cuomo Babushka doll and inside is Andrew in a Police uniform with a badge saying Keystone Cop Captain.  Sadly, the Keystone State is Pennsylvania, but that doesn’t prevent Andrew from happily smiling. 

“A New York state judge has tossed out the felony convictions of two former Marsh & McLennan Cos. executives after finding that the state attorney general’s office had failed to turn over to the defense potentially exculpatory evidence, including some 700,000 documents obtained during a related civil proceeding.”

Judge “Yates did not buy what he called the “theoretical argument” that ‘in the abstract,’ the two  [Cuomo] bureaus’ are separate and distinct entities operating in disconnected spheres’.”  Keystone Captain Cuomo was claiming his right hand didn’t know what his left was doing. But the judge wrote,  “[O]ne office, under the control of one prosecutor is authorized to prosecute Martin Act violations by civil and/or criminal prosecution. Nowhere in this statutory authority conferred upon the Attorney General in either the Executive Law or the General Business Law is there a division of authority.”

Richard L. Spinogatti and Robert J. Cleary of Proskauer Rose represented Gilman whose conviction was overturned.   But Keystone Captain Cuomo assuredly was not influenced by Proskauer contributions to his campaign.

The losers were the NY taxpayers who funded this Keystone Cop Farce.  Among the winners were Andrew Cuomo and Proskauer Rose.   Whether justice was served is lost in this farce.

The Rise & Fall of Intel Corporation ( NASDAQ: INTC ). Competition Case Update 2nd Notice of Intel Network SEC Violations Ref# HO-1248999. Similar allegations as Ivieiwt inventor Eliot I. Bernstein Federal RICO & ANTITRUST Trillion Dollar Lawsuit, Intel named as key Defendant. Complaints filed with DOJ Eric Holder, VP Joe Biden, SEC Mary Shapiro implicating Intel in RICO with Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, AOL, Inc. ( NYSE: AOL ) & more. Read all about it @ www.iviewit.tv .

The Rise & Fall of Intel Corporation ( NASDAQ: INTC ). Competition Case Update 2nd Notice of Intel Network SEC Violations Ref# HO-1248999. Similar allegations as Ivieiwt inventor Eliot I. Bernstein Federal RICO & ANTITRUST Trillion Dollar Lawsuit, Intel named as key Defendant. Complaints filed with DOJ Eric Holder, VP Joe Biden, SEC Mary Shapiro implicating Intel in RICO with Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, AOL, Inc. ( NYSE: AOL ) & more. Read all about it @ www.iviewit.tv .

Blog Post by Real True and Honest Investigative Reporter/Blogger/Whistleblower & Revealer of Light Crystal C. Cox @

http://www.ceopaulotellini.com/2010/09/statement-from-mike-bruzzone-ftc-ta.html

http://Proof Of Intel Cartel – RICO Proof


Proof Of Intel Cartel – RICO Proof -

Full Screen Link

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=51737284

Intel FTC – Intel FTC 9341 – Intel Corp. Fraud

Ceo Paul Otellini – Paul Otellini – Paul S. Otellini Intel Corp. is Corrupt – Intel is a Cartel – Intel is a Super Power and in Intel Nation – You Lose !!!! ~ Blog Owned by

Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox

SEC COMPLAINT INTEL CORPORATION

SEC Galleon, Intel Capital Complaint Click Here

Correspondence with D. Bruce Sewell, Barrett and Paul Otellini – They KNEW

Blog Owned By Crystal L. Cox Industry Whistleblower as Part of Exposing to You the Story on the Iviewit Stolen Patent and Defense of ALL who have been Beaten down and Taken Advantage of By Billion Dollar Tech Companies Above the Law.

Major Shareholder Fraud – Mary Schapiro – SEC Complaint

Click Here for SEC Complaint

to Mary Schapiro and the SEC
Regarding Intel, Warner Bros,
Jeffrey Bewkes, Lockheed Martin,
Foley and Lardner, Proskauer Rose,
Kenneth Rubenstein, Christopher C. Wheeler,
the USPTO, Sony, SGI, Bankruptcy Courts,
Time Warner, Intel Corp, Time Inc.,
Wayne Smith of Warner, Douglas Chey,
John Calkins, P. Stephen Lamont,
the New York Attorney General,
NY Supreme Court, Florida Supreme Court,
the US Patent Office, IBM,
CEO Paul Otellini of Intel Corp., the Florida Attorney Bar,
the New York Attorney Bar, Michael Grebe,
the Bradley Foundation and a whole lot More.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

http://Proof Of Intel Cartel – RICO Proof

Statement From Mike Bruzzone FTC TA Operating in Civic Service Capacity. Intel Docket 9341

“” September 7, 2010

To: Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger

Fm: Mike Bruzzone
Camp Marketing
FTC TA Operating in Civic Service Capacity

Re: FTC v Intel Docket 9341 Public Comment
Nation Interest Publication version 3.12

Here’s my FTC v Intel 9341 public comment.

You may have noticed Intel, and the Intel Communications herd, quickly followed August 4, 2010 FTC announcement of finalizing 9341 Proposed consent agreement . . . as the confirmed settlement.

Which of course is not true pending Commissioner public comment review, and then potential ratification of proposed consent agreement in all or part. I believe the consent agreement will be accepted in part and denied in part.

Honest, even for me from industry, I have never witnessed Intel comms spreading so much disinformation so quickly on August 4.

Also believe Senate and Congressional Committee’s on Commerce are watching this outcome; as a potential regulatory breakdown. We’ll get to see just how with it, or out of it, Wash DC is with this outcome. We know it bad . . . but can it show worse?

If the proposal is not accepted . . . that is a hopeful indicator toward governance & regulatory fiduciary responsibility

Obviously the FTC had a hand in this misrepresented settlement pitch. A little premature for Chairman Leibowtiz, Counsel Brill and Bureau of Competition Director Feinstein to be swept up with Intel Network to position the matter as settled . . . when in fact settlement is pending Commissioner ratification and they all know this . . .

There’s an FTC video of the August 4 proposed consent agreement press conference . . . and oh was that an Intel celebration.

Perhaps the Chairman is a little bite more cunning?

Perhaps Intel Network and comms herd are about to experience a severe conceptual discontinuity; Commissioner non acceptance of consent order as proposed.

That would be fateful twist. And I would think spark the legitimate press to lead in legitimate counterpoint response.

Mike Bruzzone

Summary Overview of 9341 proposed consent agreement; attached in full:

That entering into Bureau of Competition Docket 9341 proposed consent agreement with Intel Corporation would enable continued monopolization and non address of standing violations of Federal Law including antitrust, commerce and trade, racketeering, penal and securities law by the Federal Trade Commission.

Proposed consent agreement should be partially accepted for plaintiff sales relief and partially denied for antitrust omissions. Chartered to act under the laws of the Unites States Bureau of Competition Docket 9341 negotiated settlement proposal in current form is insufficient on antitrust environmental circumstances of fact, discovery, law precedent and Commission fiduciary responsibilities.

And should be sent back to the negotiating table where the future of democratic capitalism and civil society are truly at stake. We cannot overlook all the major Intel Network System crimes or the fiduciary and governance breakdowns which proposed order omits.

Including seven of the most hideous system crime categories;

1) Vertical by horizontal tying.

2) Intel multiple laterals of combination.

3) Intel tied charge through channels metering devices.

4) Intel Corporate plus Media tied sales attraction.

5) Network political & jurist multipoint and consumer manipulations.

6) Intel Insider Quanda stock and market rigging systems.

7) Microsoft OS horizontally tied by OEM license to Intel below cost product.

These seven categories of Intel systems deliver debilitating tendencies. System, social, and financial consequence’s on competition, enterprise, industry, regulatory, law enforcement and protection, political body, Nation’s stability, financial markets and capital creation potential. And continue to perpetuate hurdles in the way of system remedies from over 18 years of not owing up to many Intel and Microsoft antitrust violations, and concealing PC Media system crimes that have destroyed industries, competition and legitimate governance functions.

Accordingly back too the negotiating table. Docket 9341 should proceed too FTC hearing stage focused on Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 per se condemnations of law known under Section 5 umbrella which is Docket 9341.

FTC Focus -

1) Competitor limiting by vertical restraints for multiple laterals of combination.

2) Limited by horizontal contract in combinations including conspiracy to conceal.

3) In combinations cartel routing & price fixing raising consumer PC price by 6%.

4) In combinations monopoly price impact on consumers from media manipulation.

5) Validate recovery for consumer monopoly price, routing & price fixing harms.

Finally, for Docket 9341 in hearing too verify the criminal components of these competition case matters in proceeding transcript for Department of Justice timely follow on complaint;

DOJ Focus -

1) Recovering consumer monopoly price, product routing and price fixing harms.

2) Prosecuting competition, commercial frauds and racketeering that are criminal

components of the FTC Docket 9341 competition case violation’s themselves.

SEC Focus –

1) Documenting Accounting Fraud and with DOJ prosecuting Stock Market Rig.

In Summary -

Any ruling away from complete documentation of Docket 9341 case facts, in open proceedings, would deny the United States, American People, elected representatives in Congress and Senate the knowledge reference to act on the complete set of case facts.

Complete assessment of proposed order and included oversight clauses attached.

Regards,

Mike Bruzzone
Camp Marketing Consultancy

“”

Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission – In the Matter of Intel Corporation FTC Docket 9341

See Link Below for More Information
http://www.ceopaulotellini.com/2010/09/commissioners-of-federal-trade.html

Posted by Crystal L. Cox at 8:23 PM

Labels: Congressional Committees, FTC 9341, FTC Corruption, FTC Misrepresentation, Intel Corp., Intel Docket 9341, Intell Communications, Mike Bruzzone, Senate Committee

 

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

SEC Complaint Iviewit – Intel Corp.

Intel Lawsuits

Derivative Action Lawsuit
Intel is Corrupt in My Opinon and the SEC needs to Wake Up and Shut Down the Intel Mafai as Intel Corp. continues to violate Anti-Trust Laws and stomp on competitors that have better – cheaper products.

The Intel Cartel needs to Obey the laws that all the other smaller Tech Companies seem to have to obey..

Click Here for Intel Derivative Action

To Intel – Paul Otellin – Bruce Sewell from Eliot Bernstein

Iviewit – Intel – Sewell – Otellini Documents

Letters to Intel – What Bruce Sewell
and Intel Knew – Click HERE.

Intel involved in Pending Trillion
Dollar international RICO Conspiracy lawsuit.

Intel Corporation

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

Intel Was Only Company Interested In McAfee, Could Impact Symantec

Times of the Internet

- Sep 07, 2010

- 21 hours ago

The reason he says is because a September 3, 2010 SEC filing indicates that Intel Corporation (NASDAQ:INTC) was the only company interested in buying McAfee

clipped from Google – 9/2010

Intel Corporation to acquire wireless solutions business of Infineon Technologies

Trading Markets (press release)

- Sep 02, 2010

- Sep 02, 2010

Intel Corporation, a US-based semiconductor chip making company, has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire wireless solutions (WLS) business of

Related Articles »

clipped from Google – 9/2010

Intel could help standardize USB 3.0 with Cougar Point chipset this year

Business 2.0 Press

- Sep 07, 2010

- 20 hours ago

By Murad Haddad The world’s largest microprocessor maker, Intel Corporation, has confirmed the company would for the first time include USB 3.0 support in

clipped from Google – 9/2010

August Recap: Markets Need to Adapt to a Low Growth Economy

Seeking Alpha (blog)

- Sep 07, 2010

- 23 hours ago

(Bloomberg 8/31/2010) Intel Corporation (INTC): Less than 30 days after posting its best quarter ever, Intel shook off an earnings warning and continued

clipped from Google – 9/2010

powered by

Paul Otellini

Intel CEO Paul Otellini Forsees Tech Decline in U.S.

Zimonet

- Aug 27, 2010

- Aug 27, 2010

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

Intel Chief Executive Officer Paul Otellini bundled his comments with a bleak outlook on the future of the US tech industry if things continue unchanged

Related Articles »

clipped from Google – 9/2010

Intel’s Atom chipping away at new uses

San Jose Business Journal

- Sep 07, 2010

- 22 hours ago

Under the leadership of CEO Paul Otellini, Intel’s Atom processors are reportedly showing up in places few computer chips have been before.

Related Articles »

clipped from Google – 9/2010

Live-Blogging the Intel-McAfee Announcement

Wall Street Journal (blog)

- Aug 19, 2010

- Aug 19, 2010

Intel CEO Paul Otellini waved as he walked off the stage after his keynote address at the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show. The aim of the acquisition is to

Related Articles »

clipped from Google – 9/2010

Videos: Intel CEO Paul Otellini on the Infineon and McAfee acquisitions, plus

IntoMobile (blog)

- Aug 31, 2010

- Aug 31, 2010

You’re rarely going to hear me say this, so here it goes: Fox News recently recorded a stellar interview with Intel CEO Paul Otellini and discussed the

Related Articles »

clipped from Google – 9/2010

powered by

Angel of sometimes Darkness says I love you to the Angel of Light, wishing to Join the Light as Darkness is such a headache!

Tags: allen stanford, Andrew Cuomo, barroway, bernard madoff, copyright, crossbow ventures, eliot bernstein, eric holder, First Department, first department disciplinary, intel, inventor, iviewit, Joe Biden, JUDITH KAYE, kenneth rubenstein, lockheed, marc dreier, martin glenn, meltzer, MICHAEL GREBE, mpeg, mpegla, ny senate judiciary committee, patent, patentgate, PONZI, proskauer, ralph winter, RAYMOND A. JOAO, SEC, sex, sgi, SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, thomas cahill, thomas sjoblom, video, wayne huizenga, xxx

Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Technologies Notifies Governor Charlie Crist of Florida Corruption for 19th Florida Grand Jury at Suggestion of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum re The Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court Public Office Corruptions, including Judge Jorge Labarga, Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner and more. Read All About It!

Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Technologies Notifies Governor Charlie Crist of Florida Corruption for 19th Florida Grand Jury at Suggestion of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum re The Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court Public Office Corruptions, including Judge Jorge Labarga, Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner and more. Read All About It!

http://www.foley-lardner.com/2010/09/eliot-bernstein-iviewit-technologies.html by Angel of Light & Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox

Friday, September 3, 2010

 

Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Technologies Notifies Governor Charlie Crist of Florida Corruption at Suggestion of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum

Eliot Bernstein Notifies Florida Governor of Massive Florida Corruption at the Suggestion of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum.

” Friday, September 03, 2010

Hon. Governor Charlie Crist
Office of Governor Charlie Crist
State of Florida

Dear Honorable Governor Charlie Crist,

Per the Attorney General of the Great State of Florida, I write to you for inclusion into the ongoing Nineteenth Statewide Grand Jury, the Eliot Bernstein and Iviewit companies claims of criminal RICO and ANTITRUST activities by certain members of the Florida Supreme Court, the Florida Bar, the Boca Raton P.D., the law firms Proskauer Rose LLP, Foley & Lardner LLP and more.

The extent of these claims of Public Office Corruption reach the highest levels of Florida government and thus are germane to the Grand Jury’s request for information and stated purpose, “The Office of Statewide Prosecution has established a public corruption hotline for anyone who believes they have information concerning a criminal offense involving public corruption or wishes to suggest issues the Statewide Grand Jury should investigate regarding public corruption.

Below is a communication from Attorney General McCollum in response to my request to his offices for inclusion, whereby he urges me to contact and join your offices of these most serious allegations as well.

I am contacting your offices again, as I have contacted them in the past regarding these matters and am asking that your offices take all actions necessary to have these allegations investigated by the Florida Grand Jury your office has convened, as well as, any other criminal actions you may deem appropriate in investigating these matters and notifying the proper authorities of the allegations alleged herein and in the URL links provided herein.

I am happy to provide additional information or testimony relating to the matters to any investigators you deem appropriate or before the Grand Jury.

Many of these matters have crossed state lines through the law firms accused and in New York, a NY Supreme Court Whistleblower Christine Anderson, Esq. has identified a Racketeering type organization within not only the NY Courts and NY Disciplinary Agencies but the NY prosecutorial offices, including the US Attorney, the NY Attorney General Cuomo’s offices and the NY District Attorneys Office.

The allegations rise to senior members of these public offices acting in conspiracy to deprive due process to citizens’ complaints against them and in fact, a “Cleaner”, Naomi Goldstein of the NY Supreme Court was allegedly according to Anderson Whitewashing attorney complaints for these prosecutors. In addition, Anderson claims “favored lawyers and law firms” had their complaints cleaned as well.

The Anderson case now also involves Federal Obstruction of Justice in a federal Lawsuit, with death threats on Federal Witnesses on their way to testify in Federal Court. Extortion of state employees is also evidenced in Anderson, replete with physical assaults on the 60 yr. female Anderson, to either aid and abet or else by Senior New York Supreme Court Officials.

My Trillion Dollar Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit filed alongside and in support of Anderson’s Historic and Heroic Whistleblower claims, was legally “related” to the Anderson Whistleblower lawsuit by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin.

Many of the defendants in my Fed RICO and ANTITRUST are located here in Florida, in fact all of my claims began in Florida, as that is where my companies and myself were located at the time the criminal activities were first discovered.

Proskauer partners were ordered for Investigation for Conflicts of Interest and Violations of Public office by the New York Supreme Court, in a unanimous consent of five justices of that court but those investigations are now under investigation for their failure to investigate.

The allegations in NY are almost identical to those I filed in Florida just different players from the same firms often having infiltrated and violated public offices to deny due process to my complaints in violation of law and attorney and judicial conduct codes.

All of my complaints in Florida in the courts and to all state agencies are herein officially requested to be re-opened in light of the revelations of new and damning information revealed in Anderson and new evidence against certain defendants in my lawsuit from Florida.

New evidence includes Defendant Proskauer Rose LLPand Partner Thomas Sjoblom’s involvement in the ExSir Robert Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme, Sjoblom found aiding and abetting Stanford Employees in a Miami Airport Hanger teaching them how to lie to SEC and FBI investigators.

As you know, Proskauer has been sued in a Global Class Action for the entire damages of Stanford, approximately 7 Billion US Dollars. Another thread to Florida is another Defendant in my Fed RICO, now infamous Ponzi schemer, Marc S. Dreier, Esq., who has been sentenced to 20 years for his Ponzi scheme.

Greenberg Traurig law firm, who represents the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court in my Fed RICO, acting in conflict as Greenberg Traurig was also former Patent Counsel for my companies and myself, where Greenberg has recently been alleged running a large Ponzi scheme in Florida, more information below. A link too many of the Florida specific crimes can be found at
http://iviewit.tv/supreme%20court/index.htm

and

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/oneofthesedays/index.htm

Complaints filed in Florida with the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court are requested to be re-opened by your offices with oversight by your offices to mitigate any further conflicts of interest and violations of Public Offices and law.

Complaints filed with the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court against, Florida Bar employees, Florida Supreme Court Public Officials, Proskauer Partners Christopher Clarke Wheeler, Esq. who was convicted of Felony DUI with Injury in Florida and Matthew Triggs who violated Florida Bar Rules in handling Complaints in multiple conflicts and violation of public office of the Florida Bar, are also being requested herein to have formal investigations into the matters reheard entirely based on a plethora of new information and evidence against the defendants in those matters and again instituted with oversight of your offices.

Similarly, we are requesting that your offices investigate the Florida Civil Court Case Civil Case No. 502001CA004671XXCDAB with new evidence showing a complete fraud on the court was orchestrated by Proskauer and Judge Jorge Labarga of the Florida Supreme Court, prior to your appointment of Labarga to the Florida Supreme Court.

I also note that members of your inner staff are formerly with Defendant Foley & Lardner, who acted as Solicitor General to the Florida Supreme Court while my complaints were being reviewed by that Court.

I also note that Justice Jorge Labarga and several of the Florida Supreme Court Justice and Court Officials are Defendants in my Trillion Dollar Fed RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit. I also note that several members or former members of the Florida Bar are Defendants in my Trillion Dollar Fed RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit.

Therefore, I request further that your offices in handling these matters proceed with extreme caution in ferreting out ALL Conflicts of Interest prior to involvement by any party, to preclude further possible charges against members of your office or any other party your offices join into these matters.

I have attached a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form for all parties, including yourself, to sign and return to my office at 2753 NW 34th St. Boca Raton, FL 33434, prior to ANY Actions you take in even considering the matter.

As a mass of Conflicts of Interest have been discovered in these matters already and the Whistleblower further identifying a criminal conspiracy within state agencies, this Conflict form is essential to ensuring fair and impartial due process of law by non conflicted parties. Any conflicts identified may be considered based on full disclosure and agreement by ALL parties involved or new non conflicted parties must be retained prior to disclosure of even the most basic information.

As these matters in New York and Florida are against some of the highest ranking officials in the states, I know that in New York Anderson and now other related cases and witnesses who testified to the New York Senate Judiciary Committee are seeking various forms of witness protection, I similarly would like to know what options for this type of protection are available to those who come forward in Florida.

As a car bombing victim of the RICO Criminal Enterprise, described in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit I feel that certain protections should already have been availed, in fact, I petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for such once already and this Motion is located at the URL

October 07, 2004 Supreme Court of Florida Motion Final Cert
as well as, repeated requests since it was determined by Florida Fire Investigator Rick Lee that accelerants’ were the cause of the explosion that blew up three cars next to it, in Boynton Beach Florida. Despite repeated notice to Florida Law Enforcement, as you can see from the previous link they too were involved in the second act that protection from the court was requested for and therefore have never investigated these matters through public office corruption after public office corruption after public office corruption as defined herein and in the attached URL’s.

Please make all exhibits and links fully incorporated by reference herein into this letter for formal docketing in the Florida Grand Jury Request of Eliot Bernstein and the Iviewit Companies, each URL may have several URL’s, also hereby incorporated entirely by reference herein and for further use by the Grand Jury.

As Whistleblower Anderson in a sworn statement has claimed that she witnessed document destruction of investigatory files first hand (Anderson’s Statement to the New York Judiciary Committee attached below), please print each and every url in entirety for inclusion into this document and due to the fact that these matters pertain to US Patent Rights of an inventor, please retain these files and information for a period of no less than 20 yrs.

There are over a thousand documents at the URL http://www.iviewit.tv/ on the homepage under the Evidence Section on the homepage for your review and for docketing with the complaints and for review by investigators or Grand Jurors.

Despite whether the Florida Grand Jury investigates these most serious allegations of corruption at the highest levels of Florida Government, let this letter also serve as a formal request that your offices begin all necessary notices and/or investigations and notify all investigatory bodies necessary to investigate all those persons named in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit from Florida and notify them of the new evidence and requests for an entire review of all prior actions by any Florida Agency listed herein or in the URL’s embedded herein.

Please formally notify the following offices of this submission, including but not limited to, the Florida Inspector General (copied herein), the Florida US Attorney, the necessary Florida District Attorneys and the Florida Attorney General of the allegations and information contained herein, please have all parties sign prior to acceptance of ANY materials a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form, again prior to ANY actions or decisions being rendered or transfer of any confidential information.

Please take this communication as both a request to join the 19th Florida Grand Jury and Request for Formal Investigations of all of the following Florida Defendants in my Fed RICO and ANTITRUST by the Florida Governor and Florida Attorney General’s offices, please docket a separate complaint for each Florida organization and individual listed below;

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, and, all of its Partners,

Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and
individual capacities,

CHRISTOPHER C. WHEELER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

MATTHEW M. TRIGGS in his official and individual
capacity for The Florida Bar and his professional and
individual capacities as a partner of Proskauer,

ALBERT T. GORTZ, in his professional
and individual capacities,

CHRISTOPHER PRUZASKI, in his professional
and individual capacities,

MARA LERNER ROBBINS, in her professional
and individual capacities,AMENDED

DONALD “ROCKY” THOMPSON, in his COMPLAINT
professional and individual capacities,

GAYLE COLEMAN, in her professional
and individual capacities,

DAVID GEORGE, in his professional
and individual capacities,

GEORGE A. PINCUS, in his professional
and individual capacities,

GREGG REED, in his professional
and individual capacities,

LEON GOLD, in his professional
and individual capacities,

MARCY HAHN-SAPERSTEIN, in her professional
and individual capacities,

KEVIN J. HEALY, in his professional
and individual capacities,

STUART KAPP, in his professional
and individual capacities,

RONALD F. STORETTE, in his professional
and individual capacities,

CHRIS WOLF, in his professional
and individual capacities,

JILL ZAMMAS, in her professional
and individual capacities,

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, and, all of its Partners,
Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and
individual capacities,

MICHAEL C. GREBE, in his professional
and individual capacities,

WILLIAM J. DICK, in his professional
and individual capacities,

STATE OF FLORIDA,

OFFICE OF THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR FLORIDA,

HON. JORGE LABARGA in his official and individual capacities,

THE FLORIDA BAR,

JOHN ANTHONY BOGGS in his official and individual capacities,

KELLY OVERSTREET JOHNSON in her official
and individual capacities,

LORRAINE CHRISTINE HOFFMAN in her
official and individual capacities,

ERIC TURNER in his official and individual
capacities,

KENNETH MARVIN in his official and individual
capacities,

JOY A. BARTMON in her official and individual
capacities,

JERALD BEER in his official and individual
capacities,BROAD & CASSEL, and, all of its Partners,

Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and
individual capacities,

JAMES J. WHEELER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT,

HON. CHARLES T. WELLS, in his official and
individual capacities,

HON. HARRY LEE ANSTEAD, in his official and
individual capacities

HON. R. FRED LEWIS, in his official and
individual capacities,

HON. PEGGY A. QUINCE, in his official and
individual capacities,

HON. KENNETH B. BELL, in his official and
individual capacities,

THOMAS HALL, in his official and individual
capacities,

DEBORAH YARBOROUGH in her official and
individual capacities,

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION – FLORIDA,

CITY OF BOCA RATON, FLA.

BOCA RATON Police Department

ROBERT FLECHAUS in his official and
individual capacities,

ANDREW SCOTT in his official and individual
capacities,

CROSSBOW VENTURES, INC.,

ALPINE VENTURE CAPITAL PARTNERS LP,

STEPHEN J. WARNER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

RENE P. EICHENBERGER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

H. HICKMAN “HANK” POWELL, in his
professional and individual capacities,

MAURICE BUCHSBAUM, in his professional
and individual capacities,

ERIC CHEN, in his professional
and individual capacities,

AVI HERSH, in his professional
and individual capacities,

MATTHEW SHAW, in his professional
and individual capacities,

BRUCE W. SHEWMAKER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

RAVI M. UGALE, in his professional
and individual capacities,

DIGITAL INTERACTIVE STREAMS, INC.,

ROYAL O’BRIEN, in his professional
and individual capacities,

HUIZENGA HOLDINGS INCORPORATED,

WAYNE HUIZENGA, in his professional
and individual capacities,

WAYNE HUIZENGA, JR., in his professional
and individual capacities,

HOUSTON & SHAHADY, P.A., and any successors, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

BART A. HOUSTON, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities,

FURR & COHEN, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

BRADLEY S. SCHRAIBERG, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities,

MOSKOWITZ, MANDELL, SALIM & SIMOWITZ, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

WILLIAM G. SALIM, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities,

SACHS SAX & KLEIN, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

BEN ZUCKERMAN, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities,

SPENCER M. SAX, in his professional and individual capacities,

SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY LLP, and any successors, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

RICHARD SCHIFFRIN, in his professional and individual capacities,

ANDREW BARROWAY, in his professional and individual capacities,

KRISHNA NARINE, in his professional and individual capacities,

CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

ALAN M. WEISBERG, in his professional and individual capacities,

ALBERTO GONZALES in his official and individual capacities, ”

******

Above Letter From Eliot Bernstein Iviewit Technologies Founder and Main Inventor to Florida’s Governor Charlie Crist … AGAIN… What will Governor Charlie Crist of Florida do with this Knowing of Blatant and Widespread Corruption This Time ??

I will Let You Know.

In My Opinion, if Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and if Governor Charlie Crist IGNORES this information, Well Time for a RICO Lawsuit, a Whistleblower Lawsuit AGAINST the STATE of FLORIDA for aiding and abetting Massive Shareholder Fraud, Major Crime and Corruption, Government Corruption and for Hiding Secrets that will Cost Taxpayers – Investors – Shareholders BILLIONS of Dollars.

More on the Massive Corruption in Florida
www.FloridaGrandJury.com

Posted Here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

got a Tip on Corruption in Florida,
or on Bill McCollum Florida Attorney General,
Or On Governor Charlie Crist ??
eMail me
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

——————————————————

Check out Eliot Bernstein on Dick Woelfle’s We The People TV – Part 1 – The Inventions now playing @

http://wethepeopletv.com

Additional Info Attached to Letter

—–Original Message—–
From: AG [mailto:AG@MyFloridaLegal.com]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 6:01 PM
To: iviewit@iviewit.tv
Subject: From Attorney General Bill McCollum

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum received your email regarding the Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court.  Attorney General McCollum asked that I respond on his behalf.

Attorney General McCollum issued the following statement on the Florida Supreme Court’s order to convene a statewide grand jury on public corruption: McCollum Grand Jury Statement

The Statewide Prosecutor will serve, by law, as the statewide grand jury’s counsel.  As mentioned in the above statement, our Statewide Prosecutor will work with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Florida’s state attorneys to identify investigations and cases to bring before the statewide grand jury.  I am forwarding your correspondence to the Statewide Prosecution Office for review.  However, due to the confidential nature of investigations, the Statewide Prosecution Office is not at liberty to comment further.  We will keep your concerns under advisement.

If you have not already done so, I also encourage you to convey your concerns to Governor Charlie Crist’s Office at:

Office of the Governor

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida  32399-0001

Telephone:  (850) 488-4441

Website: http://www.flgov.com

You should consult your private attorney for any legal advice you may need.  By law our office cannot give legal advice, statutory interpretations, or legal opinions to private individuals or businesses.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review your concerns.

Sincerely,

Samantha Santana

Office of Citizen Services

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL. THIS ADDRESS IS FOR PROCESSING ONLY.

To contact this office please visit the Attorney General’s website at www.myfloridalegal.com and complete the on-line contact form.  Again, thank you for contacting the Office of the Florida Attorney General.

________________________________________________________________________

INTERNET MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE ON 08/21/2010

Eliot Bernstein

2753 nw 34th st

Boca Raton, FL 33434

Email: iviewit@iviewit.tv

RE: Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, Greenberg Traurig, FL Supreme Court Justices, Florida Bar and more

Subject: Public Corruption Grand Jury

I have spoken at the NY Senate Judiciary Committee who is holding hearings on Court Corruption in NY related to the NY Supreme Court Whistleblower case listed below.  My RICO and Antitrust, involving many FL attorneys and Judges is related to the Whistleblower Lawsuit.

Florida Supreme Court & Florida Bar sued in Trillion Dollar Federal RICO & ANTITRUST LAWSUIT – Radio Interview Inventor Eliot Bernstein on Les Winston’s Disbar the Florida Bar Iviewit Technologies Inventor, Eliot Bernstein, Interviews with Disbar the Florida Bar’s Radio Host Les Winston ~ The Biz 880am regarding Trillion Dollar Federal RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit against Florida Bar, FL Supreme Court, Justice Jorge Labarga, Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, Greenberg Traurig & more.

Lawsuit Legally “Related” to NY Supreme Court Whistleblower, Christine C. Anderson who reveals an attorney complaint case fixer “Cleaner”, Naomi Goldstein at NY Ethics Dept which regulates WallStreet.

Press Release Distributed @

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-iviewit-inventor-eliot-bernstein-interview-with-disbar-the-florida-bar-les-winston-the-biz-880am-regarding-trillion-dollar-fed-rico-suit-against-flo-1276897073.html

or online interactive version @

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=315

Disbar the Florida Bar Radio Host Les Winston interviews Iviewit Tech Inventor Eliot Bernstein regarding illegal activities at the Florida Supreme Court, Florida Bar & Judge Jorge Labarga.

LISTEN TO INTERVIEW @

http://disbarthefloridabar.com/?page_id=96

or

http://www.iviewit.tv/DisbarFloridaBar23.mp3

World-renowned Inventor of Digital Video & Imaging Mathematical Scaling Formulas, Eliot Bernstein discusses with radio talk show host Les Winston of Disbar the Florida Bar his Trillion Dollar Federal RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit, naming the Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court & Labarga as Defendants. The suit marked “legally” related by Judge Shira Scheindlin to a NY Whistleblower suit filed by a Supreme Court of NY Staff Attorney, Christine C. Anderson, Esq.

Bernstein’s Amended Complaint

Anderson alleges the NY Attorney Disciplinary Dept, responsible for the oversight of WallStreet lawyers, has been whitewashing and cleaning disciplinary complaints against attorneys, including US Attorney’s, DA’s & ADA’s.  Anderson named a “Cleaner” from the Ethics Dept of the NY Supreme Court, Naomi Goldstein, supervisor at the NY Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee.  No wonder WallStreet melted down & attorney regulators go unpunished for failures after causing massive damage to the American People, only to then leave government positions for cushy law firm partnerships.  Anderson claimed staff attorney, Nicole Corrado Esq., on her way to testify at deposition supporting Anderson’s suit was threatened & intimated by a Sr. Court Official regarding giving testimony, creating Federal Obstruction of Justice, Witness Tampering & more by Court Officials.

Bernstein suing the FL & NY Supreme Courts, State Bars & Disciplinary Agencies, claims conflicted members of the courts, partners from Proskauer Rose LLP law firm, the main conspirator in Bernstein’s case along with law firm Foley & Lardner, illegally handled complaints against partners while holding official title with the courts & disciplinary agencies.  In NY, Bernstein’s

allegations led to unanimous consent of 5 justice of the NY Supreme Court to have former NY State Bar Association President, Steven Krane, a Proskauer partner, ordered for investigation for conflicts & the appearance of impropriety.  Proskauer’s Kenneth Rubenstein, the sole (soulless) patent evaluator for MPEGLA LLC, ordered for investigation along with attorney Raymond Joao, who claims to have put 90+ patents into his own name.  Bernstein claims patents filed by Joao were during & after the time Iviewit retained Joao to patent inventions for Bernstein, Joao patented them for himself instead.  After termination as Iviewit counsel, Joao worked for infamous convicted felon Marc S. Dreier, sentenced July 13, 2009, to 20 years in prison.  Thomas Cahill, former

Chief Counsel of the First Dept whom Anderson alleges to be the ringleader at the First Dept, ordered for Special Inquiry.  Cahill’s investigation relates to Krane’s conflicts & Cahill’s role in aiding and abetting the RICO Criminal Enterprise, which Bernstein claims is composed mainly of corrupt mob type law firms.  Anderson under oath in Scheindlin’s US Fed Court stated “Cleaner”

Goldstein was cleaning complaints against “favored law firms and lawyers”.

NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo fingered by Anderson & Bernstein for illegal representation of the accused NY State Officials in violation of his public office duties.  Cuomo represents the State Officials both professionally & personally on the broke NY State taxpayers’ dime and Bernstein alleges the NY Attorney General is guilty of Felony Title 18 Obstruction of Justice. Obstruction caused by Cuomo’s conflicting his offices with scienter from investigating the accused State Defendants they represent while simultaneously failing to call in a non-conflicted investigator to investigate the Defendants on behalf of the People of NY. Cuomo is duty bound by Public Officer Law 17(2)(b), which dictates the Attorney General not represent State Defendants when conflict with their offices exist.

Yet Cuomo not only represents the State Defendants when conflict exists in both Bernstein and Anderson’s lawsuit but has failed to call in any outside investigator to investigate the State Defendants, his clients, creating a block to prosecution & obstructing justice.  Cuomo, Eliot Spitzer & the NY Attorney General’s office are Defendants in Bernstein’s suit.  The fact they are Defendants makes the continued representation of the State Defendants by the Attorney General’s office bizarre and further illegal.  Bernstein filed criminal complaints with the Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine, the US Attorney General Eric Holder & others regarding the criminal activities of both the NY and FL Officials.

Bernstein is the inventor of digital imaging & video technologies that revolutionized the Internet, Television & Digital Imaging, the technologies valued over a Trillion Dollars over the 20 yr patent life.  Bernstein’s patents are currently on Suspension with the US Patent & Trademark Office by the Commissioner of Patents while the Office of Enrollment & Discipline (OED)

Director at the US Patent Office, the Federal Patent Bar, investigates Bernstein’s attorneys for crimes including Fraud Upon the US Patent & Trademark Office.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/USPTO%20Suspension%20Notices.pdf

Bernstein claims Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Stephen Lucchesi claimed to be working with Harry I. Moatz, Director of the OED investigating allegations of crimes against the US & more, Bernstein claims Moatz confirmed collaboration with the FBI. Bernstein calls for the end of attorney self regulation & self discipline by their peers, which has obviously failed, in favor of charging attorneys with criminal acts to criminal prosecutors, warning that victims of attorneys, judges and prosecutors who file with attorney run state attorney regulators are doing themselves a disfavor.  Bernstein claims the attorneys gain advantage through using the state disciplinary agencies, defending themselves in conflict and gaining confidential information against them, while feathering their caps with conflicted decisions on Supreme Court letterhead.  Bernstein along with Anderson, testified before the NY Senate Judiciary Committee in NY @

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR8OX8uuAbw&feature=player_embedded

&

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knQLll5hmjs&feature=player_embedded

Chaired by Hon. Senator John Sampson, the hearings to investigate allegations of corruption in the NY Supreme Court Appellate Divisions.  Hearings remain ongoing & claims made by NY Senators attending to begin a Task Force to investigate victims’ claims of legal process abuse. According to Bernstein, one look only at the recent plethora of criminal activity in the stock market & Ponzi schemes to see that all of these schemes are run by law firms. Bernstein claims the Ponzis are illegal money laundering operations for monies illegally obtained by the law firms Criminal RICO Enterprise activities.  Bernstein points to recent schemes such as Bernard Madoff, former “Sir” Allen Stanford, Marc S. Dreier & Greenberg Traurig’s involvement directly in a Ponzi, as evidence that lawyers are behind the schemes & directly involved in intentionally creating subterfuge of the regulatory agencies that could have prevented these schemes.  Greenberg, recall was central to Abramoff’s fraud and linked to the Stanford Regulatory Failures.

Other Defendants, reported to the SEC for alleged Shareholder Frauds relating to the Iviewit RICO & ANTITRUST include Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., AOL Inc. (NYSE: AOL), Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC), Silicon Graphics, Inc. (delisted NYSE: SGI) & successor Silicon Graphics International (NASDAQ: SGI), Sony Corporation (NYSE/ADR: SNE) , Lockheed Martin

Corporation (NYSE: LMT), Ernst & Young Global Limited @

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-eliot-bernstein-of-iviewit-technologies-f iles-sec-fbi-complaint-with-mary-schapiro-others-against-warner-bros-aol-inc-time-warner-intel-sgi-268580941.html

and

http://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=274

and

IVIEWIT SEC COMPLAINT WARNER BROS. ET AL.

 

Information regarding these Ponzi schemes and the relation to the Iviewit crimes @

•         Information regarding Greenberg Traurig’s involvement in a recent Ponzi, “The American Lawyer is reporting today, May 13, 2010, that the law firm of Greenberg Traurig has been sued for its willful participation in and facilitation of what it knew to be an illegal Ponzi scheme” @

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=313

Greenberg represents in conflict the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court Defendants in Bernstein’s Trillion Dollar RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit, as Greenberg was retained patent counsel by Bernstein & therefore acts wholly in violation of law representing Defendants in the matter.

•         Information re the Bernard Madoff, Stanford & Dreier connections to Defendant Proskauer @

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=307

“Proskauer Rose and Partner Thomas Sjoblom Further Implicated in the Allen Stanford Ponzi Scheme, Failures of SEC in Stanford Cited Further Supporting Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein’s Federal Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Claims”

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=256

“Proskauer (Porksour) Rose Law Firm Going Down in Allen Stanford Ponzi, next the trail of money may lead to Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein’s stolen Trillion Dollar Patents”

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=254

“Florida Bar Under Fire for Lack of Regulation in Robert Allen Stanford & Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme, Kenneth Marvin defendant in Iviewit Multi Trillion Dollar Lawsuit”.  After reading

the article, one wonders if the Florida Bar reported this liability in the Iviewit Multi Trillion Dollar Federal Lawsuit to State Auditors? The legally related cases to Anderson are @

Cases @ New York Second Circuit

1.       08-4873-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket – Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. – TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT

2.       Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.

3.       Esposito v The State of New York, et al.

4.       McKeown v The State of New York, et al.

Related Cases @ US District Court – Southern District NY

5.       07cv09599 Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT which other cases have been marked legally “related” to by Fed. Judge Shira A. Scheindlin @

 

6.       07cv11196 Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.

 

7.       07cv11612 Esposito v The State of New York, et al.

 

8.       08cv00526 Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.,

 

9.       08cv02391 McKeown v The State of New York, et al.

 

10.   08cv02852 Galison v The State of New York, et al.,

11.   08cv03305 Carvel v The State of New York, et al.

 

12.   08cv4053 Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.

 

13.   08cv4438 Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.

 

14.   08 cv 6368   John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York

 

15.   06cv05169 McNamara v The State of New York, et al.

 

Other Press Releases

NEWS TIP – SEC CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST AOL, TIME WARNER, INTEL, LOCKHEED, SGI FOR SHAREHOLDER FRAUD! IVIEWIT PRESS RELEASE

Iviewit Press Release: World Renowned Inventor of Internet Video and Image Scaling Formulae Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies files SEC & FBI CRIMINAL Complaint with Mary Schapiro & Others against Warner Bros., AOL Inc., Time Warner, Intel, SGI, Lockheed Martin, Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner for Patent Theft, a car bombing and more.  Read all about it Online Interactive Version of Press Release

 

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=288

 

Hard Copy of the Release

 

(Copy & paste the urls to address bar if not clickable or see attached PDF)

Prior Press Release re Supreme Court of New York Whistleblower Lawsuit

US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit (07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al.  Criminal Allegations Requiring Senator John L. Sampson’s Immediate Attention. In Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s US Federal Court Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson Reveals a “Cleaner”, Naomi Goldstein, at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department ETHICS Committee allegedly Whitewashing Complaints for US Attorneys, DA’s and more, a scene more reminiscent of the Gotti Trial on the 26th Floor of the same Federal Courthouse…Inventor Eliot Bernstein’s Family Minivan Bombed in US Patent Office Fraud files Twelve Trillion Dollar RICO Suit legally “related” by Judge Scheindlin to the Whistleblower case (08-4873-cv US Court of Appeals Second Circuit) and US District Court (07cv11196).

Where was the Press through all this, the Right Arm of Anarchy, not a single report in over five years regarding a Car Bombing so powerful it blew up three cars next to it in Boynton Beach Florida and not a single press story? Where was the Press for the Whistleblower revelations of Whitewashing of Complaints by the New York Supreme Court for US Attorneys and District Attorneys, a Cleaner at the Ethics Department that regulates Wall Street Lawyers?  Has Investigative Journalism died?  If there are any Journalists or Investigative Reporters left on earth, please feel free to call me, Eliot Bernstein @ 561-245-8588 or write iviewit@iviewit.tv to break the greatest patent story ever told.

For an Interactive version of the attached Adobe PDF Letter to the New York Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator John L. Sampson below with Links to all Exhibits @

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=209

From: Eliot Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@hotmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 6:43 AM

To: John L. Sampson, Chairman ~ New York Senate Judiciary Committee ( sampson@senate.state.ny.us )

Cc: The Honorable John Conyers Jr. (D-MI 14th) – Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee ( john.conyers@mail.house.gov ); The Honorable Glenn Fine ~ Inspector General @ United States Department of Justice ( glenn.a.fine@usdoj.gov ); The Honorable Glenn Fine – Inspector General Department of Justice; The Honorable United States Senator Dianne Feinstein (Business Fax); Jennifer Duck, Chief Counsel ~ Senator Dianne Feinstein ( jennifer_duck@judiciary-dem.senate.gov ); The Honorable Eric H. Holder Jr., United States Attorney General @ US DOJ ( Inspector.general@usdoj.gov ); The Honorable Eric H. Holder Jr., United States Attorney General @ US DOJ ( AskDOJ@usdoj.gov ); The Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin @ United States District Court ~ Southern District of New York ( shira_a._scheindlin@NYSD.uscourts.gov ); Elena Kagan, Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law Dean of the Faculty of Law @ Harvard Law School ( ekagan@law.harvard.edu ); Harry I. Moatz ~ Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office – Office of Enrollment & Discipline; David Kappos ~ Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO ( david.kappos@USPTO.gov ); John J. Doll – Commissioner for Patents; David Gouvaia @ Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration ( david.gouvaia@tigta.treas.gov ); Mary L. Schapiro, Chairman @ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ( CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov ); Enforcement @ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ( enforcement@sec.gov ); Chris P. Mercer, President ~ Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) ( cpm@carpmaels.com ); Steven Michael Cohen, Counselor and Chief of Staff @ New York Office of the Attorney General ( steven.cohen@oag.state.ny.us ); Timothy Spotts Esq. ~ Counsel @ Senate Standing Committee on the Judiciary ( spotts@senate.state.ny.us ); ‘George Onorato (D-NY 12th) ( onorato@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Senator Ruth E. Hassell-Thompson (D-NY 36th) ( hassellt@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Ruben Diaz (D-NY 32nd) ( diaz@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Jeffrey D. Klein (D-NY 34th) ( jdklein@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘ ( eadams@senate.state.ny.us )’; New York State Senator Pedro Espada Jr. (D) @ 33rd Senate District ( espada@senate.state.ny.us ); ‘Senator Neil D. Breslin (D-NY 46th) ( breslin@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘ ( dilan@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Diane J. Savino (D-NY 23rd) ( savino@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Bill Perkins (D-NY 30th) ( perkins@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘George D. Maziarz (R-NY 62nd) ( maziarz@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Senator John A. DeFrancisco (R-NY 50th) ( jdefranc@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘David J. Valesky (D-NY 49th) ( volker@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Stephen M. Saland (R-NY 41st) ( saland@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘William J. Larkin, Jr. (R-NY 39th) ( lavalle@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Senator John J. Bonacic (R-NY 42nd) ( bonacic@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘George H. Winner, Jr. (R-NY 53rd) ( winner@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Michael F. Nozzolio (R-NY 54th) (

nozzolio@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Andrew J. Lanza (R-NY 24th) ( lanza@senate.state.ny.us )’; New York State Senator Michael H. Ranzenhofer (R, C, IP) @ 61st Senate District ( ranz@senate.state.ny.us ); Monica Connell, Assistant Attorney General – Division of State Counsel Litigation Bureau ~ State of New York Office of the Attorney General ( monica.connell@oag.state.ny.us ); Rory J. Bellantoni, Partner @ Lovett & Bellantoni, LLP ( info@lovett-bellantoni.com ); Jonathan Lovett, Partner @ Lovett & Bellantoni, LLP ( info@lovett-bellantoni.com ); Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire ( caroline@cprogers.com ); Marc R. Garber, Esquire @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.; Michele Marlene Mulrooney Jackoway Esq. ( MMulrooney@JTWAMM.com ); ‘Andy Dietz’; Barry Becker @ Rock-It Cargo USA, Inc. ( barryb@rockitcargo.com ); ‘Terry’; Pat Handley (  svm231@aol.com ); Kevin R. Hall Esq. ( krhall007@aol.com ); ‘ iviewit@gmail.com  ‘; ‘Iviewit Press Release’; TourCandy; ‘Guy Iantoni’; James F. Armstrong ( jim@6armstrongs.com ); Alessandra Dupont ( dupontalessandra1@gmail.com ); Betsy Combier @ Parent  Advocates; ‘Christine C. Anderson ( tallawah@earthlink.net )’; Eleanor Capogrosso Esq. ( eleanor.capogrosso@gmail.com ); Frank Brady @ Expose Corrupt Courts ( CorruptCourts@gmail.com ); ‘Gizella Weisshaus ( GizellaWeisshaus@yahoo.com )’; Jackie Weaver ( jaweaver13@yahoo.com ); Kathryn Grace Jordan @ E.N.D. ~ End Discrimination Now – E.N.D. ( info@enddiscriminationnow.com ); ‘Luisa Esposito’; ‘Pamela Carvel ( estatecrimes@gmail.com )’; Ruth M. Pollack ( ruthmpollack@yahoo.com ); Ruth M. Pollack Esq. ( Ruth@ruthmpollackesq.com ); Scott H. Robb ( shrobb@msn.com ); ‘Tembani Selepi Xaba ( tembani@earthlink.net )’; William Galison ( wgalison@aol.com ) Subject: US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit (07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. Criminal Allegations Requiring Your Immediate Attention, Revelation of “Cleaner” at NY First Dept Ethics Committee, Whitewashing Complaints for US Attorneys, District Attorneys and Assistant DA’s and  More.

——

I-VIEW-IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Surf with Vision

Dear Hon. John L. Sampson, Chairman of the New York Senate Judiciary Committee,

Please review the attached PDF Document or

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=209

which is a letter regarding the Criminal Allegations levied in the Christine C. Anderson v. New York State et al. case to you and requires actions on the part of the NY Senate Judiciary Committee.

Very Truly Yours,

Eliot I. Bernstein

Inventor

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL

——————————–

World Renowned Inventor of Trillion Dollar + Technologies and Car Bombing Victim Eliot Bernstein filed written testimony to supplement his live testimony before a September 24, 2009 NY State Senate Judiciary Committee hearing under Chair, NY Senator John L. Sampson, as announced in the attached press release. An interactive version of the press release is @

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=189

and the Formal Written Prepared Statement is @

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=165

The technologies are claimed to be used across all Internet and Digital Television providers hosting and distributing video, on Defense applications, Space and Flight simulators, Guidance Systems, Medical Imaging Devices, GPS Mapping like Google Maps, You-Tube, the Hubble Space Telescope and much more.  Major Fortune 1000 and Wall street interests implicated in the case include Intel, SGI, Lockheed, IBM, Comcast, Verizon, AOL TW, Yahoo, Universal Studios, Morgan Stanley, CIBC and much more.  In what is commonly now referred to as “Patentgate”, the attention of Washington, DC and Federal Agencies have been trailing the case for years which involves allegations of Fraud on the US Patent Office and the Attempted Murder of the Inventor’s Family by a Car Bombing in Boynton Beach, Florida strong enough to take out 3 cars, images @ www.iviewit.tv .

Bernstein filed a TWELVE COUNT – TWELVE TRILLION DOLLAR Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( RICO ) Federal complaint, the case moved its way in to New York when Bernstein’s case was marked legally “related” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, to a Whistleblower Lawsuit of Christine Anderson.  Anderson case comes from alleged corruption out of the Supreme Court of NY First Department in Manhattan, which is heading to trial very on October 19, 2009. Major Law Firms and Wall Street interests implicated in the matter include major Defense firm Lockheed Martin, the Intel Corporation, Silicon Graphics Inc and others.

Law firms Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner implicated as central players in the theft and fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Offices, which have led to suspension of the intellectual Properties by the US Patent Office Commissioner are under investigation, the patents suspended while federal investigations continue.  Proskauer recently sued for aiding and abetting the Stanford Ponzi scheme and a former SEC Proskauer partner has resigned from the firm, leaving the firm with a global class action for the entire billions stolen by Stanford.  Ties to Madoff and Proskauer also abound and Proskauer is also found representing themselves in court against Bernstein their former client, in MASS conflicts of interest.

The press release contains Links to Written Testimony and other releases including a Petition to President Obama and US Attorney General Eric Holder. The full NY senate Judiciary Committee hearing regarding the Public Office Corruption in NY can be found @

 

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=159

Bernstein’s Testimony comes at 4.02.08 on the video timeline where he declares that the State Bar Association is a drinking establishment and that it should be “blown up” and “hard pipe hitting investigators who hate lawyers” should be charged with investigating and prosecuting dirty lawyers, judges and politicians, to the jeers of the packed hearing room.

Press Release appeared originally at the totally awesome Free Press Release

 

Amended Complaint – 12 Trillion Dollars

 

February 13th 2009 Letter to President Barack Hussein Obama II to enjoin The Honorable Eric H. Holder Jr., United States Attorney General ~ Department of Justice

 

More @ Expose Corrupt Courts “BREAKING NEWS IN NEW YORK STATE COURT CORRUPTION TRIAL – Anderson Pulls in Powerhouse Trial Team to Confront Court Ethics Corruption”

 

Christine Anderson Statement

Exhibit 2 – Christine C. Anderson Statement

Christine C. Anderson

Attorney at Law

227 Riverside Drive, Ste. 2N

New York, New York 10025

September 13, 2009 (via Confirmed Overnight Delivery)

The Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General of the United States

Office of the Attorney General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

The Hon. Preet Bharara

United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York

United States Department of Justice

One St. Andrews Plaza

New York, New York 10007

Hon. William M. Welch II

Chief, Public Integrity Unit

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

The Hon. John L. Sampson,Chairman

New York State Senate Judiciary Committee

409 Legislative Office Building

Albany, NY 12247

Re: Request for Federal Investigation Into Allegations of Corruption and Witness Intimidation and Appointment of Federal Monitor

Gentlemen:

My name is Christine C. Anderson. For six and one-half years, I was a Principal Attorney of the New York State Appellate Division, First Department’s Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the “DDC”). The DDC is responsible for investigating and disciplining attorneys found guilty of misconduct in representing the public in the Bronx and Manhattan. After discovering and reporting of acts of misconduct and corruption at the DDC, which acts constituted an abuse of power and a fraud upon the public, my employment was summarily terminated in June, 2007.

Prior to my employment with the DDC, I was in private practice for over twenty years. Before that, I worked for the Human Resources Administration of New York City. In other words, I am a thoroughly seasoned attorney, with a broad based knowledge of general practice.

As a result of my wrongful termination in retaliation for my reporting misconduct in violation of my First Amendment rights, I instituted a lawsuit captioned Anderson v. State of New York, et al., 07 Civ. 9599 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). (A copy of my complaint in this action is attached hereto as Exhibit A.) Specifically, I discovered and reported that employees of the DDC had engaged in, inter alia, the “whitewashing” [of] complaints of misconduct leveled against certain “select” attorneys and law firms. This “whitewashing” sometimes involved burying cases or destroying evidence, so that certain complaints were inevitably, unavoidably, dismissed. I witnessed this destruction of evidence myself. Other reported misconduct involves victimizing attorneys lacking privileged positions or connections.

Although the then Chief Counsel of the DDC, Thomas Cahill, stepped down in 2007, evidence clearly establishes that under the leadership of Alan Friedberg, the current Chief Counsel, the same practice of corruption and whitewashing of complaints continues. Such practice robs the public of any hope at justice; it also works to the detriment of the very public the DDC is duty-bound to serve.

During the course of my litigation against the DDC, a former colleague of mine, who still works as a Principal Attorney at the DDC, agreed to testify on my behalf at a deposition. This former colleague, Nicole Corrado, has been employed by the DDC for approximately eight years, prior to which she worked as a prosecutor for New York State. On the morning of her deposition, however, while en route to her deposition, Ms. Corrado was approached on the street by a supervisor at the DDC, who threatened and intimidated her with respect to her upcoming deposition testimony. Although terribly shaken, Ms. Corrado nonetheless sat for her deposition and testified truthfully. Following her deposition, however, Ms. Corrado has been subjected to further harassment and intimidation at the hands of the DDC. She has been forced to take a leave of absence as a result.

On June 8, 2009, I testified at a hearing convened by John L. Sampson, New York State Senator and Chairman of the New York State Standing Committee On The Judiciary. (A copy of my affidavit submitted to the Committee is attached hereto as Exhibit B.) At that hearing, several witnesses testified as to their shocking experiences with the grievance and judiciary committees in New York State. Shockingly, within days of my testimony, in my lawsuit, my sealed medical and psychiatric records were filed and posted publicly on the court’s Internet filing system by counsel for the defendants – i.e., the New York State Attorney General’s Office. I regard those actions as horrifically unethical and malicious, and taken in deliberate retaliation for my testifying at the Senate hearing.

The detailed testimony presented by innumerable witnesses at the June 8th Senate hearing reveals the manifold reports of corruption and abuse by the State’s Disciplinary Committees. (A copy of the transcript of this hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit C.) Charges included concealment of evidence, obstruction of justice, extortionate sexual threats by attorneys, pilfering of estates by attorneys, abuse of power, fraud, conspiracy and repeated violations of state and federal constitutional rights.

In light of the foregoing, it is plain that the enduring practice of allowing attorneys in this state to police themselves is fundamentally flawed. With the numerous reports of abuse by both attorneys and state officials, the corruption in the court system has reached a critical stage. Accordingly, I respectfully request that you authorize the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate the epidemic of honest services fraud in the New York state court system, and the appointment of a Federal Monitor, to oversee the lawful operation of the same.

Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your response.

Very truly yours,

Christine C. Anderson

cc w/o enc:

The Hon. David A. Paterson

New York State Governor

Office of the Governor of New York State

State Capitol

Albany, New York 12224

The Hon. Boyd M. Johnson III

Deputy United States Attorney for the

Southern District of New York

Public Corruption Unit

United States Department of Justice

One St. Andrews Plaza

New York, New York 10007

The Hon. Loretta A. Preska

Chief U.S. District Judge

United States Courthouse

Southern District of New York

500 Pearl Street

New York, New York 10007-1312

The Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo

New York State Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General of New York State

The Capitol

Albany, New York 12224-0341

The Hon. Luis A. Gonzalez

Presiding Justice, New York State Appellate Division,1st Department

27 Madison Avenue

New York, New York 10010

The Hon. Joseph M. Demarest, Jr.

Assistant Director in Charge, New York Division

26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor

New York, New York 10278-0004

End Anderson Letter******The Committee should take URGENT notice of the following information exposed by the Internet Legal Site, Expose Corrupt Courts, in relation to Anderson’s claims perhaps of Targeting Federal Witnesses for Harassment, I again quote and read into the record @ http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2008/11/breaking-news.html : FBI Probes Threats on Federal Witnesses in NY Ethics Scandal.

Honorable Governor Crist, in closing, I welcome the opportunity to work with your offices in cleaning the Great State of Florida of one of the largest Public Office Corruption scandals of the century.  Thank you in advance for your cooperation in these matters.  Please formally docket this FORMAL COMPLAINT and REQUEST FOR GRAND JURY participation and confirm such in writing with my offices via US Mail as soon as possible.

Yours truly,

Eliot Ivan Bernstein, Inventor

IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Surf with Vision

EliotI. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL (yes, two identically named)
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Uview.com, Inc. – DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL
I.C., Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com LLC – DL
Iviewit LLC – DL
Iviewit Corporation – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Corporation
2753 N.W. 34th St.
Boca Raton, Florida33434-3459
(561) 245.8588 (o)
(561) 886.7628 (c)
(561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit@iviewit.tv
http://www.iviewit.tv
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress
http://iviewit.tv/wordpresseliot

Other Websites I like:
http://www.deniedpatent.com
http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com
http://www.judgewatch.org/index.html

http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com
http://www.corruptcourts.org
http://www.changecourtsnow.com

http://www.makeourofficialsaccountable.com
http://www.parentadvocates.org
http://www.newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com

http://cuomotarp.blogspot.com

http://www.disbarthefloridabar.com

http://www.VoteForGreg.us Greg Fischer
http://www.liberty-candidates.org/greg-fischer/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Vote-For-Greg/111952178833067

http://www.killallthelawyers.ws/law (The Shakespearean Solution)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This message and any attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. SS 2510-2521.
This e-mail message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message or call (561) 245-8588. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately.

I-VIEW-IT  HOLDINGS, INC.

I-VIEW-IT  TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form

Failure to comply may result in criminal and civil charges against you

Friday, September 03, 2010

Please accept and return signed the following Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form (COI) before continuing further with adjudication, review, dismissal, investigation or ANY other action in regard to the the attached GRAND JURY REQUEST FOR INCLUSION IN ONGOING Nineteenth Florida Grand jury and formal complaint requests for docketing and formal disposition with governor charlie crist’s office.

dante Gates of Hell

This Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form designed to ensure that the review and any determinations from such review of the enclosed materials are not biased by any conflicting financial interest or any other conflicting interest by those reviewers responsible for the handling of this confidential information.  Whereby any conflict with any of the main alleged perpetrators listed in the attached List of Parties of the alleged crimes referenced in these matters or any other perpetrators not know at this time must fully be disclosed and affirmed in writing and returned for review prior to any action on your part.

Disclosure forms with “Yes” answers by any party to any of the following questions are demanded not to open the remainder of the documents or opine in any manner and instead forward the matters on to the next available reviewer that is free of conflict that can sign and complete the requisite disclosure.  Please identify conflicts that you have in writing upon terminating your involvement in the matters.  As many of these alleged perpetrators are large law firms, members of various state and federal courts and officers of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, careful review and disclosure of any conflict with those named herein is pertinent in your continued handling of these matters.

As these matters involve claims of, including but not limited to, conflicts, violations of public offices, interference with complaints in the Supreme Court of New York, coercion, document destruction, obstructions of justice, tampering with Federal Witnesses, RICO, ATTEMPTED MURDER, the need for prescreening for conflict is essential to the administration of due process in these matters to avoid further OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.  Federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin has legally related these matters to a Whistleblower Lawsuit who alleges similar claims of public office corruption against Supreme Court of New York personnel and possibly others.  Please take this as a formal written request for full disclosure of any conflict on your part to any related matters known or unknown, such request conforming with all applicable state and federal laws, public office rules and regulations, attorney conduct codes and judicial canons or other international law and treatises requiring disclosure of conflicts and recusal from matters where conflict precludes involvement.

Failure to comply with all applicable conflict disclosure rules, regulations and laws prior to continued action on your part will be cause for the filing of complaints against you for any decisions or actions you make prior to a signed Conflict Of Interest Disclosure Form with all applicable regulatory agencies.  Complaints will be filed with all appropriate authorities, including but not limited to the appropriate, Federal, State, Local and International Law Enforcement Agencies, Public Integrity Officials, Judicial Conduct Officials, State and Federal Bar Associations, Disciplinary Departments and any/all other appropriate oversight agencies for failing to follow well established rules and regulations governing public office conflict, attorney conduct conflicts, judicial conduct and law.

  1. Do you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate have, any direct or indirect relations (relationships), or interest in any outside entity or any direct or indirect relations (relationships) to the parties listed in attached LIST OF PARTIES to the proceeding of the matters you are reviewing?

_____NO                ____YES

Please describe in detail any identified conflicted parties on a separate and attached sheet.  Fully disclose all information regarding the conflict. If the answer is YES, please describe the relations, relationships and / or interests and please affirm whether such presents a conflict of interest in fairly reviewing the matters herein without undue bias or prejudice of any kind.  Please indicate if you are seeking waiver of the conflict(s) or will be disqualifying from involvement in these matters.

  1. Do you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate have, any direct or indirect relations (relationships), or interest in any outside entity or any direct or indirect relations (relationships) to Any other known or unknown person or known or unknown entity not named herein that will cause your review of the complaint you are charged with investigating to be biased by any conflicting past, present, or future financial interest or any other interest(s)?

_____NO                ____YES

Please describe in detail any identified conflicted parties on a separate and attached sheet.  Fully disclose all information regarding the conflict. If the answer is YES, please describe the relations, relationships and / or interests and please affirm whether such presents a conflict of interest in fairly reviewing the matters herein without undue bias or prejudice of any kind.  Please indicate if you are seeking waiver of the conflict(s) or will be disqualifying from involvement in these matters.

  1. Do you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate, receive salary or other remuneration or financial considerations from any entity related to the enclosed parties to the proceeding of the mattersincluding but not limited to campaign contributions whether direct, “in kind” or of any type at all?

_____NO                ____YES

Please describe in detail any consideration(s) on a separate and attached sheet fully disclosing all information regarding the consideration(s). If the answer is Yes, please describe the relations, relationships and / or interests and please affirm whether such presents a conflict of interest in fairly reviewing the matters herein without undue bias or prejudice of any kind. Please indicate if you are seeking waiver of the conflict(s) or will be disqualifying from involvement in these matters.

  1. Have you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate, had any prior communication(s), including but not limited to, phone, facsimile, e-mail, mail, verbal, etc. with any person related to the proceeding of the Iviewit or related matters?

_____NO                ____YES

Please describe in detail any identified communication(s) on a separate and attached sheet fully disclosing all information regarding the communication(s). If the answer is YES, please describe the communication(s) in detail, including but not limited to, who was present, what type of communication, the date and time, please affirm whether such communication(s) present a conflict of interest in fairly reviewing the matters herein without undue bias or prejudice of any kind.

  1. I have run a thorough and exhaustive Conflict of Interest check to conform with any and all state, federal or local laws, public office rules and regulations, judicial cannons, attorney conduct codes and any other professional association rules and regulations regarding disclosure of any conflict(s) to verify that my spouse, my dependents, and I in the aggregate, have no conflict(s) with any parties to the matters referenced herein.

_____NO                ____YES

  1. I have notified all parties with any liabilities regarding my continued actions in these matters, including state auditors and agencies, insurance concerns or any other person with liability that may result from my actions in these matters.

_____NO                ____YES

 

LIST OF PARTIES

  • Proskauer Rose, LLP; Alan S. Jaffe – Chairman Of The Board – (”Jaffe”); Kenneth Rubenstein – (”Rubenstein”); Robert Kafin – Managing Partner – (”Kafin”); Christopher C. Wheeler – (”Wheeler”); Steven C. Krane – (”Krane”); Stephen R. Kaye – (”S. Kaye”) and in his estate with New York Supreme Court Chief Judge Judith Kaye (“J. Kaye”); Matthew Triggs – (”Triggs”); Christopher Pruzaski – (”Pruzaski”); Mara Lerner Robbins – (”Robbins”); Donald Thompson – (”Thompson”); Gayle Coleman; David George; George A. Pincus; Gregg Reed; Leon Gold – (”Gold”); Albert Gortz – (”Gortz”); Marcy Hahn-Saperstein; Kevin J. Healy – (”Healy”); Stuart Kapp; Ronald F. Storette; Chris Wolf; Jill Zammas; FULL LIST OF 601 liable Proskauer Partners; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Proskauer partner, affiliate, company, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Proskauer ROSE LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Proskauer related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • MELTZER, LIPPE, GOLDSTEIN, WOLF & SCHLISSEL, P.C.; Lewis Melzter – (”Meltzer”); Raymond Joao – (”Joao”); Frank Martinez – (”Martinez”); Kenneth Rubenstein – (”Rubenstein”); FULL LIST OF 34 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. liable Partners; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. partner, affiliate, company, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • FOLEY & LARDNER LLP; Ralf Boer (”Boer”); Michael Grebe (“Grebe”); Christopher Kise (“Kise”); William J. Dick – (”Dick”); Steven C. Becker – (”Becker”); Douglas Boehm – (”Boehm”); Barry Grossman – (”Grossman”); Jim Clark – (”Clark”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Foley & Lardner partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Foley & Lardner; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Foley & Lardner related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP; Richard Schiffrin – (”Schiffrin”); Andrew Barroway – (”Barroway”); Krishna Narine – (”Narine”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP; Norman Zafman – (”Zafman”); Thomas Coester – (”Coester”); Farzad Ahmini – (”Ahmini”); George Hoover – (”Hoover”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP; Martyn W. Molyneaux – (”Molyneaux”); Michael Dockterman – (”Dockterman”); FULL LIST OF 198 Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP liable Partners; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • Christopher & Weisberg, P.A.; Alan M. Weisberg – (”Weisberg”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Christopher & Weisberg, P.A.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • YAMAKAWA INTERNATIONAL PATENT OFFICE; Masaki Yamakawa – (”Yamakawa”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Yamakawa International Patent Office partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Yamakawa International Patent Office; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Yamakawa International Patent Office related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • GOLDSTEIN LEWIN & CO.; Donald J. Goldstein – (”Goldstein”); Gerald R. Lewin – (”Lewin”); Erika Lewin – (”E. Lewin”); Mark R. Gold; Paul Feuerberg; Salvatore Bochicchio; Marc H. List; David A. Katzman; Robert H. Garick; Robert C. Zeigen; Marc H. List; Lawrence A. Rosenblum; David A. Katzman; Brad N. Mciver; Robert Cini; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Goldstein & Lewin Co. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Goldstein & Lewin Co.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Goldstein & Lewin Co. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • INTEL Corporation;
  • Silicon Graphics Inc.;
  • Lockheed Martin Corporation;
  • Real 3D, Inc. (SILICON GRAPHICS, INC., LOCKHEED MARTIN & INTEL) & RYJO; Gerald Stanley – (”Stanley”); Ryan Huisman – (”Huisman”); RYJO – (”RYJO”); Tim Connolly – (”Connolly”); Steve Cochran; David Bolton; Rosalie Bibona – (”Bibona”); Connie Martin; Richard Gentner; Steven A. Behrens; Matt Johannsen; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO; Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO related or affiliated entities, and any successor companies both individually and professionally;
  • Tiedemann Investment Group; Bruce T. Prolow (”Prolow”); Carl Tiedemann (”C. Tiedemann”); Andrew Philip Chesler; Craig L. Smith; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Tiedemann Investment Group partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Tiedemann Investment Group and any other Tiedemann Investment Group related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • Crossbow Ventures  / Alpine Partners; Stephen J. Warner – (”Warner”); Rene  P. Eichenberger – (”Eichenberger”); H. Hickman  Hank  Powell – (”Powell”); Maurice Buchsbaum – (”Buchsbaum”); Eric Chen – (”Chen”); Avi Hersh; Matthew Shaw – (”Shaw”); Bruce W. Shewmaker – (”Shewmaker”); Ravi M. Ugale – (”Ugale”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Crossbow Ventures  / Alpine Partners partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Crossbow Ventures  / Alpine Partners and any other Crossbow Ventures  / Alpine Partners related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • BROAD & CASSEL; James J. Wheeler – (”J. Wheeler”); Kelly Overstreet Johnson – (”Johnson”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Broad & Cassell partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Broad & Cassell and any other Broad & Cassell related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • FORMER IVIEWIT MANAGEMENT & BOARD; Brian G. Utley/Proskauer Referred Management – (”Utley”); Raymond Hersh – (”Hersh”)/; Michael Reale – (”Reale”)/Proskauer Referred Management; Rubenstein/Proskauer Rose Shareholder in Iviewit – Advisory Board; Wheeler/Proskauer Rose Shareholder in Iviewit – Advisory Board; Dick/Foley & Lardner – Advisory Board, Boehm/Foley & Lardner – Advisory Board; Becker/Foley & Lardner; Advisory Board; Joao/Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe & Schlissel – Advisory Board; Kane/Goldman Sachs – Board Director; Lewin/Goldstein Lewin – Board Director;  Ross Miller, Esq. (“Miller”), Prolow/Tiedemann Prolow II – Board Director; Powell/Crossbow Ventures/Proskauer Referred Investor – Board Director; Maurice Buchsbaum – Board Director; Stephen Warner – Board Director; Simon L. Bernstein – Board Director (“S. Bernstein”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Former Iviewit Management & Board partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Former Iviewit Management & Board and any other Former Iviewit Management & Board related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT – WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA; Judge Jorge LABARGA – (”Labarga”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT – WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time.  Hereinafter, collectively referred to as (”15C”);
  • THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE; Thomas Cahill – (”Cahill”); Joseph Wigley – (”Wigley”); Steven Krane, any other John Doe (”John Doe”) of THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time;
  • THE FLORIDA BAR; Lorraine Christine Hoffman – (”Hoffman”); Eric Turner – (”Turner”); Kenneth Marvin – (”Marvin”); Anthony Boggs – (”Boggs”); Joy A. Bartmon – (”Bartmon”); Kelly Overstreet Johnson – (”Johnson”); Jerald Beer – (”Beer”); Matthew Triggs; Christopher or James Wheeler; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) The Florida Bar staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time;
  • MPEGLA, LLC. – Kenneth Rubenstein, Patent Evaluator; Licensors and Licensees, please visit www.mpegla.com for a complete list; Columbia University; Fujitsu Limited; General Instrument Corp; Lucent Technologies Inc.; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Mitsubishi Electric Corp.; Philips Electronics N.V. (Philips); Scientific Atlanta, Inc.; Sony Corp. (Sony); EXTENDED LIST OF MPEGLA LICENSEES AND LICENSORS; any other John Doe MPEGLA, LLC. Partner, Associate, Engineer, Of Counsel or Employee; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) MPEGLA, LLC partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to MPEGLA, LLC and any other MPEGLA, LLC related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • DVD6C LICENSING GROUP – Licensors and Licensees, please visit www.mpegla.com for a complete list; Toshiba Corporation; Hitachi, Ltd.; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Time Warner Inc.; Victor Company Of Japan, Ltd.; EXTENDED DVD6C DEFENDANTS; any other John Doe DVD6C LICENSING GROUP  Partner, Associate, Engineer, Of Counsel or Employee; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) DVD6C LICENSING GROUP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to DVD6C LICENSING GROUP and any other DVD6C LICENSING GROUP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • Harrison Goodard Foote incorporating Brewer & Son; Martyn Molyneaux, Esq. (“Molyneaux”); Any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Harrison Goodard Foote (incorporating Brewer & Son) partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Harrison Goodard Goote incorporating Brewer & Son and any other related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • Lawrence DiGiovanna, Chairman of the Grievance Committee of the Second Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee;
  • James E. Peltzer, Clerk of the Court of the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department; Diana Kearse, Chief Counsel to the Grievance Committee of the Second Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee;
  • Houston & Shahady, P.A., any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Houston & Shahady, P.A., affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Houston & Shahady, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • Furr & Cohen, P.A. any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Furr & Cohen, P.A., affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Furr & Cohen, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A., any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A., affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.  The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and any other related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • Sachs Saxs & Klein, PA any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Sachs Saxs & Klein, PA, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Sachs Saxs & Klein, PA related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • Huizenga Holdings Incorporated any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Huizenga Holdings Incorporated affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Huizenga Holdings Incorporated related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
  • Judge Martin Glenn, New York Southern District Bankruptcy;
  • Judge Shira A. Scheindlin;
  • Davis Polk & Wardell;
  • Ropes & Gray LLP;
  • Sullivan & Cromwell LLP;
  • Eliot I. Bernstein, (“Bernstein”) a resident of the State of California, and former President (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries and the founder of Iviewit and principal inventor of its technology;
  • P. Stephen Lamont, (“Lamont”) a resident of the State of New York, and former Chief Executive Officer (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and all of its affiliates and subsidiaries;
  • Andrew Cuomo in his official and individual capacities,
  • Justice Richard C. Wesley in his official and individual capacities,
  • Justice Peter W. Hall in his official and individual capacities,
  • Justice Debra Ann Livingston in her official and individual capacities,
  • Justice Ralph K. Winter in his official and individual capacities
  • Justice Shira A. Scheindlin in her official and individual capacities,
  • Alan Friedberg in his official and individual capacities,
  • Roy Reardon in his official and individual capacities,
  • Judge Martin Glenn in his official and individual capacities,
  • Warner Bros. Entertainment,
  • Time Warner Communications,
  • AOL Inc.,
  • Sony Corporation,
  • Ropes & Gray,
  • Stanford Financial Group,
  • Bernard L. Madoff et al.
  • Marc S. Dreier,
  • Sony Corporation,
  • Ernst & Young,
  • Arthur Andersen,
  • SKULL AND BONES;
  • The Russell Trust Co.;
  • Yale Law School;
  • Council on Foreign Relations;
  • The Bilderberg Group;
  • The Federalist Society;
  • The Bradley Foundation;
  • The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation;
  • Trilaterals
  • Freemasonry,

Please include in the COI check the defendants and any other parties in the legally related cases in New York District Court Southern District of New York to Docket No 07cv09599 Anderson v The State of New York, et al. – WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT, including but not limited to;

  1. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 08-4873-cv
  2. (07cv11196) Bernstein et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. – TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT Defendants, in addition to those already listed herein, include but are not limited to;
  • STATE OF NEW YORK;
  • THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM;
  • STEVEN C. KRANE in his official and individual Capacities for the New York State Bar Association and the Appellate Division First Department Departmental disciplinary Committee, and, his professional and individual capacities as a Proskauer partner;
  • ESTATE OF STEPHEN KAYE, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • MATTHEW M. TRIGGS in his official and individual capacity for The Florida Bar and his professional and individual capacities as a partner of Proskauer;
  • JON A. BAUMGARTEN, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • SCOTT P. COOPER, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • BRENDAN J. O’ROURKE, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • LAWRENCE I. WEINSTEIN, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • WILLIAM M. HART, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • DARYN A. GROSSMAN, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • JOSEPH A. CAPRARO JR., in his professional and individual capacities;
  • JAMES H. SHALEK; in his professional and individual capacities;
  • GREGORY MASHBERG, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • JOANNA SMITH, in her professional and individual capacities;
  • TODD C. NORBITZ, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • ANNE SEKEL, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • JIM CLARK, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR, FLORIDA;
  • FLORIDA SUPREME COURT;
  • HON. CHARLES T. WELLS, in his official and individual capacities;
  • HON. HARRY LEE ANSTEAD, in his official and individual capacities;
  • HON. R. FRED LEWIS, in his official and individual capacities;
  • HON. PEGGY A. QUINCE, in his official and individual capacities;
  • HON. KENNETH B. BELL, in his official and individual capacities;
  • THOMAS HALL, in his official and individual capacities;
  • DEBORAH YARBOROUGH in her official and individual capacities;
  • DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION – FLORIDA;
  • CITY OF BOCA RATON, FLA.;
  • ROBERT FLECHAUS in his official and individual capacities;
  • ANDREW SCOTT in his official and individual capacities;
  • PAUL CURRAN in his official and individual capacities;
  • MARTIN R. GOLD in his official and individual capacities;
  • SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT;
  • CATHERINE O’HAGEN WOLFE in her official and individual capacities;
  • HON. ANGELA M. MAZZARELLI in her official and individual capacities;
  • HON. RICHARD T. ANDRIAS in his official and individual capacities;
  • HON. DAVID B. SAXE in his official and individual capacities;
  • HON. DAVID FRIEDMAN in his official and individual capacities;
  • HON. LUIZ A. GONZALES in his official and individual capacities;
  • SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT;
  • SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND  DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE;
  • HON. A. GAIL PRUDENTI in her official and individual capacities;
  • HON. JUDITH  S. KAYE in her official and individual  capacities;
  • STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION OF INVESTIGATION;
  • ANTHONY CARTUSCIELLO in his official and individual capacities;
  • LAWYERS FUND FOR CLIENT PROTECTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
  • OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
  • ELIOT SPITZER in his official and individual capacities, as both former Attorney General for the State of New York, and, as former Governor of the State of New York;
  • COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;
  • VIRGINIA STATE BAR;
  • ANDREW H. GOODMAN in his official and individual capacities;
  • NOEL SENGEL in her official and individual capacities;
  • MARY W. MARTELINO in her official and individual capacities;
  • LIZBETH L. MILLER, in her official and individual capacities;
  • MPEGLA LLC; LAWRENCE HORN, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • INTEL CORP.; LARRY PALLEY, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • SILICON GRAPHICS, INC.;
  • LOCKHEED MARTIN Corp;
  • EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE;
  • ALAIN POMPIDOU in his official and individual capacities;
  • WIM VAN DER EIJK in his official and individual capacities;
  • LISE DYBDAHL in her official and personal capacities;
  • DIGITAL INTERACTIVE STREAMS, INC.;
  • ROYAL O’BRIEN, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • HUIZENGA HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, WAYNE HUIZENGA, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • WAYNE HUIZENGA, JR., in his professional and individual capacities;
  • BART A. HOUSTON, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;
  • BRADLEY S. SCHRAIBERG, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;
  • WILLIAM G. SALIM, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;
  • BEN ZUCKERMAN, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;
  • SPENCER M. SAX, in his professional and individual capacities;
  • ALBERTO GONZALES in his official and individual capacities;
  • JOHNNIE E. FRAZIER in his official and individual capacities;
  • IVIEWIT, INC., a Florida corporation;
  • IVIEWIT, INC., a Delaware corporation;
  • IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation (f.k.a. Uview.com, Inc.);
  • UVIEW.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation;
  • IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation (f.k.a. Iviewit Holdings, Inc.);
  • IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., a Florida corporation;
  • IVIEWIT.COM, INC., a Florida corporation;
  • I.C., INC., a Florida corporation;
  • IVIEWIT.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation;
  • IVIEWIT.COM LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
  • IVIEWIT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
  • IVIEWIT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation;
  • IBM CORPORATION;
  1. Other Cases @ US District Court – Southern District NY
  • 07cv09599        Anderson v The State of New York, et al. – WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT;
  • 07cv11196        Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.;
  • 07cv11612        Esposito v The State of New York, et al.;
  • 08cv00526        Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.;
  • 08cv02391        McKeown v The State of New York, et al.;
  • 08cv02852        Galison v The State of New York, et al.;
  • 08cv03305        Carvel v The State of New York, et al.;
  • 08cv4053          Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.;
  • 08cv4438          Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.;
  • 08cv6368          John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York

Relevant Sections of Judicial Cannons, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law

Conflict of interest” indicates a situation where a private interest may influence a public decision. Conflict of Interest Laws are laws and regulations designed to prevent conflicts of interest. These laws may contain provisions related to financial or asset disclosure, exploitation of one’s official position and privileges, regulation of campaign practices, etc.

New York State Consolidated Laws Penal
ARTICLE 200 BRIBERY INVOLVING PUBLIC SERVANTS AND RELATED OFFENSES

S 200.03 Bribery in the second degree

S 200.04 Bribery in the first degree

S 200.05 Bribery; defense

S 200.10 Bribe receiving in the third degree

S 200.11 Bribe receiving in the second degree

S 200.12 Bribe receiving in the first degree

S 200.15 Bribe receiving; no defense

S 200.20 Rewarding official misconduct in the second degree

S 200.22 Rewarding official misconduct in the first degree S 200.25 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree

S 200.27 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree

S 200.30 Giving unlawful gratuities

S 200.35 Receiving unlawful gratuities

S 200.40 Bribe giving and bribe receiving for public office; definition of term

S 200.45 Bribe giving for public office

S 200.50 Bribe receiving for public office

ARTICLE 175 OFFENSES INVOLVING FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS

S 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree. S 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

S 175.15 Falsifying business records; defense

S 175.20 Tampering with public records in the second degree

S 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree

S 175.30 Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree

S 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree

NY Constitution ARTICLE XIII Public Officers

Public Officers  – Public Officers ARTICLE 1

ARTICLE 2 Appointment and Qualification of Public Officers – ARTICLE 15 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS

S 468-b. Clients` security fund of the state of New York

S 476-a. Action for unlawful practice of the law

S 476-b. Injunction to restrain defendant from unlawful practice of the law

S 476-c. Investigation by the attorney-general

S 487. Misconduct by attorneys

S 488. Buying demands on which to bring an action.

Public Officers Law SEC 73 Restrictions on the Activities Of Current and Former State Officers and Employees

Public Officers Law SEC 74 Code of Ethics

Conflicts of Interest Law, found in Chapter 68 of the New York City Charter, the City’s Financial Disclosure Law, set forth in section 12-110 of the New York City Administrative Code, and the Lobbyist Gift Law, found in sections 3-224 through 3-228 of the Administrative Code.

TITLE 18 FEDERAL CODE & OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW

TITLE 18 PART I CH 11

Sec. 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses

Sec. 225. – Continuing financial crimes enterprise

BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Sec. 205. – Activities of officers and employees in claims against and other matters affecting the Government

Sec. 208. – Acts affecting a personal financial interest

Sec. 210. – Offer to procure appointive public office

Sec. 225. – Continuing financial crimes enterprise

TITLE 18 PART I CH 79 Sec 1623 – False declarations before grand jury or court

Sec 654 – Officer or employee of United States converting property of another

TITLE 18 PART I CH 73 Sec 1511 – Obstruction of State or local law enforcement

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1961 RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT Organizations (”RICO”)

Section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice),

Section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations)

Section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement),

Section 1952 (relating to racketeering),

Section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity),

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (A) RICO

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (B) RICO

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (C) RICO

title 18 part i ch 19 sec 1962 (d) RICO

TITLE 18 PART I CH 19 CONSPIRACY Sec 371 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OFFENSE OR TO DEFRAUD UNITED STATES

TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1957 Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity

TITLE 18 PART I CH 47 Sec 1031 – Major fraud against the United States

Judicial Cannons

Canon 1.  A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

[1.1] Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.

Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities

(A) A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

[2.2][2A] The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the proscription is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code.  Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules or other specific provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.

Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Impartially and Diligently

(B) Adjudicative responsibilities.

(l) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.

(2) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.

(D) Disciplinary responsibilities.

(1) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a substantial violation of this Part shall take appropriate action.

(2) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a substantial violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility shall take appropriate action.

(3) Acts of a judge in the discharge of disciplinary responsibilities are part of a judge’s judicial duties.

(E) Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned

[3.11][3B(6)(e)] A judge may delegate the responsibilities of the judge under Canon 3B(6) to a member of the judge’s staff. A judge must make reasonable efforts, including the provision of appropriate supervision, to ensure that Section 3B(6) is not violated through law clerks or other personnel on the judge’s staff. This provision does not prohibit the judge or the judge’s law clerk from informing all parties individually of scheduling or administrative decisions.

[3.21][3E(1)] Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply. For example, if a judge were in the process of negotiating for employment with a law firm, the judge would be disqualified from any matters in which that firm appeared, unless the disqualification was waived by the parties after disclosure by the judge.

[3.22][3E(1)] A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification.

Canon 4. A Judge May Engage in Extra-Judicial Activities To Improve the Law, the Legal System, and the Administration of Justice

Canon 5. A Judge Should Regulate Extra-Judicial Activities To Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Duties

Public Office Conduct Codes New York

PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW Laws 1909, Chap. 51.

CHAPTER 47 OF THE CONSOLIDATED LAWS PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW

Sec. 17. Defense and indemnification of state officers and employees.

2 (b)

Sec. 18. Defense and indemnification of officers and employees of public entities.

3 (b)

Sec. 74. Code of ethics.

(2)

(3)

(4)

§ 73. Business or professional activities by state officers and employees and party officers.

NY Attorney Conduct Code

(a) “Differing interests” include every interest that will adversely affect either the judgment or the loyalty of a lawyer to a client, whether it be a conflicting, inconsistent, diverse, or other interest.

CANON 5. A Lawyer Should Exercise Independent Professional Judgment on Behalf of a Client

DR 5-101 [1200.20] Conflicts of Interest – Lawyer’s Own Interests.

DR 5-102 [1200.21] Lawyers as Witnesses.

DR 5-103 [1200.22] Avoiding Acquisition of Interest in Litigation.

DR 5-104 [1200.23] Transactions Between Lawyer and Client.

DR 5-105 [1200.24] Conflict of Interest; Simultaneous Representation.

DR 5-108 [1200.27] Conflict of Interest – Former Client.

CANON 6. A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Competently

CANON 7. A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Zealously Within the Bounds of the Law

DR 7-102 [1200.33] Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law.

DR 7-110 [1200.41] Contact with Officials.

DR 8-101 [1200.42] Action as a Public Official.

DR 8-103 [1200.44] Lawyer Candidate for Judicial Office.

A. A lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office shall comply with section 100.5 of the Chief Administrator’s Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR) and Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

CANON 9. A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance of Professional Impropriety

DR 9-101 [1200.45] Avoiding Even the Appearance of Impropriety.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements in this CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM are true and correct.  Executed on this ____ day of _______20__.  I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims will subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties, including possible culpability in the RICO related crimes including the alleged attempted murder of the inventor Eliot Bernstein and his wife and children in a car-bombing attempt on their lives. I agree to accept responsibility for the unbiased review, and presentation of findings to the appropriate party(ies) who also have executed this CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM.  A lack of signature will serve as evidence that I have accepted this document with conflict in the event that I continue to represent the matters without signing such COI first and will be an admission of such conflict(s).

Organization – GRAND JURY REQUEST FOR INCLUSION IN ONGOING Nineteenth Florida Grand jury and formal complaint requests for docketing and formal disposition with governor charlie crist’s office.

Print Name & Title______________________________________________________________________

Signature ____________________________________________   Date________/_________/__________

If you are unable to sign this COI and are therefore unable to continue further to pursue these matters, please attach a statement of whom we may contact as your replacement, a copy can be sent to iviewit@iviewit.tv or the mailing address below:

Eliot I. Bernstein

Inventor

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL

Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL

Uview.com, Inc. – DL

Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL

Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL

I.C., Inc. – FL

Iviewit.com LLC – DL

Iviewit LLC – DL

Iviewit Corporation – FL

Iviewit, Inc. – FL

Iviewit, Inc. – DL

Iviewit Corporation

2753 N.W. 34th St.

Boca Raton, Florida  33434-3459

(561) 245.8588 (o)

(561) 886.7628 (c)

(561) 245-8644 (f)

iviewit@iviewit.tv

www.iviewit.tv

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

This message and any attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. SS 2510-2521.  This message intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message or call (561) 245-8588. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately.

The Relevant Sections are merely a benchmark guide and other state, federal and international laws may be applicable to your particular circumstances in reviewing or acting in these matters.  For a more complete list of applicable sections of law relating to these matters please visit http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/oneofthesedays/index.htm#_Toc107852933

Tags: Add new tag, allen stanford, Andrew Cuomo, barroway, bernard madoff, crossbow ventures, crystal cox, eliot bernstein, eric holder, expose corrupt courts, First Department, first department disciplinary, foley & lardner, intel, inventor, iviewit, JUDITH KAYE, kenneth rubenstein, lockheed, marc dreier, martin glenn, meltzer, MICHAEL GREBE, mpeg, mpegla, ny senate judiciary committee, okun, ownership, patent, patentgate, person, proskauer, ralph winter, RAYMOND A. JOAO, sex, sgi, SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, steven c. krane, theft, thomas cahill, thomas sjoblom, United States Patent & Trademark Office, video, wayne huizenga, xxx

Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein, Guest on Dick Woelfle’s We the People TV on Network 125 Television @ http://wethepeopletv.com. Discussion of Intel, SGI, Lockheed, AOL, Time Warner, IBM. Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner involvement in Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit legally related to NY Supreme Court Whistleblower Christine Anderson lawsuit and more coming soon

Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein, Guest on Dick Woelfle’s We the People TV on Network 125 Television @ http://wethepeopletv.com. Discussion of Intel, SGI, Lockheed, AOL, Time Warner, IBM. Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner involvement in Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit legally related to NY Supreme Court Whistleblower Christine Anderson lawsuit and more coming soon

From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@iviewit.tv]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 11:46 AM
To: Subject: Eliot Bernstein, Guest on Dick Woelfle’s We the People TV on Network 125 Television, Part 1 the Inventions

http://wethepeopletv.com

PART 1

http://

PART 2

http://

PART 3

http://

PART 4

http://

PART 5

http://

PART 6

http://

PART 7

http://

PART 8

http://

PART 9

http://

PART 10

http://

PART 11

http://

PART 12

http://

PART 13

http://

PART 14

http://

PART 15

http://

Part 16

http://

Eliot Bernstein, Guest on Dick Woelfle’s We the People TV on Network 125 Television, Part 1, the inventions.  From Video circumcision to video technologies that changed the world.  More to come soon.  Sign up to Network 125 tv and for 5 bucks you can watch tv on hundreds of stations on the internet or connected to your tv.

———

Network 125 now delivering 2 million videos per month.

www.tvandvideoguide.com
www.actorsmodelssingers.com
www.Support125.com
www.BBoomersTV.com
www.channel125.comwww.network125.comwww.channellivetv.com
www.HotRadio125.com, FitAndSexyTV www.Sports125.com
www.Combat-TV.com

Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL (yes, two identically named)
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Uview.com, Inc. – DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL
I.C., Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com LLC – DL
Iviewit LLC – DL
Iviewit Corporation – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Corporation
2753 N.W. 34th St.
Boca Raton, Florida 33434-3459
(561) 245.8588 (o)
(561) 886.7628 (c)
(561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit@iviewit.tv

http://www.iviewit.tv

http://iviewit.tv/inventor/index.htm

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress

http://www.facebook.com/#!/iviewit

http://www.youtube.com/user/eliotbernstein?feature=mhum

Also, check out

Eliot’s Testimony at the NY Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings Professional Video courtesy of NY Senate, my fav part at end

Eliot’s Testimony at the NY Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings Professional Video Handheld Camera View, my favorite version at the very end

and

Christine Anderson New York Supreme Court Attorney Ethics Expert Whistleblower Testimony, FOX IN THE HENHOUSE and LAW WHOLLY VIOLATED TOP DOWN EXPOSING JUST HOW WALL STREET / GREED STREET / FRAUD STREET MELTED DOWN AND WHY NO PROSECUTIONS OR RECOVERY OF STOLEN FUNDS HAS BEEN MADE. Anderson in US Fed Court Fingers, US Attorneys, DA’s, ADA’s, the New York Attorney General and “Favored Lawyers and Law Firms” @

and finally latest blog

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=594

Eliot Part 1 – The Iviewit Inventions @

Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein Guest on Les Winston DisBar the Florida Bar Show #1

Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein Guest on Les Winston DisBar the Florida Bar Show #2

Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein Guest on Les Winston DisBar the Florida Bar Show #3

Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein Guest on Les Winston DisBar the Florida Bar Show #4

Eliot Bernstein Iviewit Inventor Televison Interview Dick Woelfle Network 125

Eliot for President in 2012 Campaign Speech 1 with No Top Teeth, Don’t Laugh, Ok, laugh but very important

Eliot for President in 2012 Campaign Speech 2 with No Top OR Bottom Teeth, Don’t Laugh, Ok, laugh again but more important

Eliot for President in 2012 Campaign Speech 3 most important

https://www.facebook.com/iviewit?ref=tn_tnmn#!/note.php?note_id=319280841435989

Other Websites I like:

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com

http://www.judgewatch.org/index.html

http://www.parentadvocates.org

http://www.newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com

http://cuomotarp.blogspot.com

http://www.disbarthefloridabar.com

http://www.constitutionalguardian.com

http://www.americans4legalreform.com

http://www.attorneysabovethelaw.com

http://www.VoteForGreg.us Greg Fischer

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Vote-For-Greg/111952178833067

www.justice4every1.com
www.schwagerfirm.com
www.eldermurderabuseandexploitation.blogspot.com

https://mccormickestatefraud.wordpress.com

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org

www.AAAPG.net
www.corruptny.com
www.corruptWA.com
www.killingseniors.com
www.guardianpredators.com
www.guardianshipexposed.com

http://www.hangthebankers.com

www.ddaweb.org

http://tedbernsteinreport.blogspot.com


“We the people are the rightful master of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” – Abraham Lincoln

“Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” — Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798

“If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” Thomas Jefferson

“Each time a person stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, these ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” – Robert F. Kennedy

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!” – Patrick Henry

“Dick: The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” The Shakespearean Solution, Sam The Butcher, Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2, 71–78

I live by the saying from Ellen G. White:
“The greatest want of the world is the want of men, –men who will not be bought or sold; men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name; men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.” -Education, p. 57(1903)

If you are one of these people, nice to be your friend ~ Eliot

Steven C. Krane of Proskauer Rose LLP lawfirm obituary, lackey to Judith “Judenraut” Kaye former Chief Judge of New York. GOOD RIDDANCE KRANE FROM IVIEWIT & ELIOT BERNSTEIN

Steven C. Krane of Proskauer Rose LLP lawfirm obituary, lackey to Judith “Judenraut” Kaye former Chief Judge of New York. GOOD RIDDANCE KRANE FROM IVIEWIT & ELIOT BERNSTEIN

Could not have said this better as to what a piece of crap Krane was to the US, a fascist Nazi Judenraut pig!  Go Nando.

http://thirdtierreality.blogspot.com/2010/08/profiles-in-human-waste-biglaw-shill.html

THIRD TIER REALITY

My goal is to inform potential law school students and applicants of the ugly realities of attending law school. DO NOT ATTEND UNLESS: (1) YOU GET INTO A TOP 8 LAW SCHOOL; (2) YOU GET A FULL-TUITION SCHOLARSHIP TO ATTEND; (3) YOU HAVE EMPLOYMENT AS AN ATTORNEY SECURED THROUGH A RELATIVE OR CLOSE FRIEND; OR (4) YOU ARE FULLY AWARE BEFOREHAND THAT YOUR HUGE INVESTMENT IN TIME, ENERGY, AND MONEY DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, GUARANTEE A JOB AS AN ATTORNEY OR IN THE LEGAL INDUSTRY.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Profiles in Human Waste: ABA Hitman Steven C. Krane

On August 5, 2008, the ABA Standing Committee on “Ethics and Professional Responsibility” issued Formal Opinion 08-451, i.e. the infamous Outsourcing Opinion. This placed the ABA’s stamp of approval on U.S. law firms’ hiring foreign lawyers and non-lawyers for American legal discovery. Here is the text of that dastardly opinion:

http://www.aapipara.org/File/Main%20Page/ABA%20Outsourcing%20Opinion.pdf

There is some good news: the chair of this committee, Steven C. Krane of New York – “an expert on legal ethics” – recently died of a heart attack, at age 53. You talk about poetic justice! This could not have happened to a better person. After all, he financially killed THOUSANDS of American JDs, who otherwise could have paid their bills and student loans with doc review gigs.

“Steven C. Krane, the general counsel of Proskauer Rose and a former state bar president who was instrumental in a wide-ranging reformulation of the state’s attorney ethics rules, died of a heart attack Tuesday. He was 53.

Mr. Krane collapsed at the conclusion of a business lunch at a restaurant near Proskauer’s office at 47th Street and Broadway. He was pronounced dead at Roosevelt Hospital at 2:19 p.m.”

We can see that Porky allowed his arteries to become clogged. (I suppose all the time he spent on screwing working-class lawyers and their families, and covering up for high-dollar, corporate criminals did not permit this porker to exercise. Hence, his health declined to the point where he died of a heart attack, at age 53.) I am sure his “business lunch” cost more than many of us slap down for two weeks’ worth of groceries.
For an interesting read on the workings of Krane and Co. at Proskauer Rose LLP, check out the link above. If the allegations are true, then this is a stinging indictment against this man, his firm, and the New York judicial system.

http://www.abanow.org/2010/06/statement-of-aba-president-carolyn-b-lamm-on-death-of-proskauer-roses-steven-krane/

And how can we complete this entry, without providing the link to ABA “president” Carolyn Lamm’s truly EMBARRASSING hagiography of Krane? [Disclaimer: Do not read this garbage if you have recently eaten anything – especially a business lunch.]

“The legal profession has lost one of its shining stars.
Hopefully, you are not eating right now. The New York State Bar Association renamed a fund, to honor this (massive) waste of space, i.e. “NEWLY RENAMED STEVEN C. KRANE FUND TO ASSIST YOUNG LAWYERS WORKING IN PUBLIC SERVICE WITH PAYING STUDENT LOANS.”Did this influential porker EVER advocate for lower tuition?! Did he ever push to make student loans dischargeable in bankruptcy?!?!
Apparently, Krane “held significant concern” about the plight of recent, debt-soaked law grads working in public service positions – all while helping his corporate firm earn $643 million in revenues for 2009. (And thoughts/concerns speak louder than actions, right?!?!) What a Renaissance man!

http://readme.readmedia.com/State-Bar-Mourns-Passing-of-Past-President-Steven-C-Krane/1505066

Fatty served on several ABA and New York State commissions, including an appointment bythat shining beacon of integrity, David A. Paterson, to the “New York State Commission on Public Integrity” – whatever the hell that is.
In the final, brutal analysis, anyone who crushes the livelihoods for THOUSANDS of professionals – with a few keystrokes – is NOT deserving of one ounce of respect or one iota of sympathy. This fat pig made a lot of money by squashing little people, and protecting white collar scum.
Burn in hell for eternity, you piece of trash. Do not shed a single tear for this “man.” He devoted his entire “professional” life to screwing people over a wooden crate. It doesn’t matter that Krane has been in a wooden coat for less than 2 months. (On a positive note, at least the worms and crickets will be able to feast on his large remains for quite some time.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proskauer_Rose

Steven C. Krane, general counsel for Proskauer Rose, was a brilliant lawyer, wonderful leader and good friend to so many in the American Bar Association.

Steven also was one of the nation’s foremost experts in the field of ethics and professional responsibility and was a model in those areas in his daily life. I was honored to have him serve on my Commission on Ethics 20/20, designed to look at the U.S. system of lawyer regulation in the context of advances in technology and global legal practice developments.”

New York State Bar Article on Fat Bastard

22 comments:

Scammed Hard! said…

Delightfully brutal as always, Nando. I think you hit the nail on the head with this one: “Anyone who crushes the livelihoods for THOUSANDS of professionals – with a few keystrokes – is NOT deserving of one ounce of respect or one iota of sympathy.”People like this guy will be remembered for selling out the many for the sake of the few, for accelerating the overall decline of the legal industry, and seeing thousands of attorney jobs shipped overseas. How’s that for “ethics!”

August 7, 2010 8:44 PM

Anonymous said…

I actually think nando went easy on this worthless, corrupt piece of shit.August 7, 2010 9:04 PM

Anonymous said…

No need to beat a dead horse Nando. If Krane had not authored the ethics opinion, someone else would have. Let the man rest in peace. I mean if you had to live a life looking like Steven Krane, you would want a brief life too. I hope he wasn’t buried wearing that awful looking tie (with the caribou and girafe pattern-I actually saw this tie on sale at Marshall’s a few years ago for $5).The ABA is not interested in advancing the interests of law students or shitlaw solos. Every week I open my jurisdiction’s law journal and read about a young attorney who is being disciplined by the bar for stupid shit (e.g., putting trust monies in business accounts, not communicating with clients within 24 hours, not having retainer agreements, etc.). Only the principals at Biglaw can lie, cheat and steal from their clients without fear of repercussion. However, if you are a solo and God forbid you pocketed 10 cents by accident from your attorney trust account-automatic disbarment. Life’s not fair despite Krane’s early demise. Krane is not the enemy. He was merely a minion of the ABA/Biglaw lobby.

August 7, 2010 10:44 PM

AJ said…

Why can’t the legal profession abide by universal ethics? Why must they make their own rules and then claim morality by only abiding by those specific rules? Just shows that the purpose of the law is to protect those in power.August 8, 2010 5:02 AM

Anonymous said…

Age 53 is a very young age. I think this goes to show that we, as lawyers, shouldn’t take this “law” stuff too seriously. Life is so short.When it comes down to it, the “law” is really just a bunch of chatter between us human beings.

Some people treat the law as something to sacrifice their life, family, and spouses for. However, we need to keep in mind that far more matters than the “law.”

August 8, 2010 7:50 AM

Anonymous said…

ABA ARTICLE

ABA ARTICLE 2

Tyson said…

I think the problem is that there are not enough lawyers. We need more lawyers because only other lawyers understand what us lawyers actually do. Nobody else in our society truly understands how valuable we are and how hard *most* of us really work.

Also, hiring lawyers is not that costly. It is only costly for people without money. Actually, legal services of $400/hr for an army of lawyers is fairly cheap for a corporation when considering that they handle multi-million dollar transactions.

There are great complexities in our capitalist society and only lawyers have the acumen to figure them out.

August 8, 2010 8:38 AM Anonymous said…

Screwing over the little fish is never acceptable. Fuck Steven Krane, though we should pray the Lord has mercy on him for even the worst sinner may gain salvation.August 8, 2010 9:24 AM

Anonymous said…

Nando you are nothing more than a hack. You could actually write a legitimate blog with legitimate journalism techniques to actually shed light on what is going on in the industry instead you cut and past nearly every article on here and seemingly just substitute different numbers for tuition and different names of the school along with a picture of a different overflowing toilet/sewer system. And now you are dancing on the graves of those who have passed.Yes, the market is terrible and yes, there are many people to blame for this, but your efforts are nothing more than self-promotion.August 8, 2010 11:30 AM

Tyson said…

MYTH: If a job isn’t on the internet, then it doesn’t exist.TRUTH: Law firms do not usually like to post hiring activities on the internet because it makes a law firm look unstable, unattractive, weak, and understaffed. Instead, firms like to hire discreetly. Firms also like to hire people they personally know already and like to find that “perfect fit” – something a firm can’t really assess by electronic applications.SOLUTION: Get your butt out there and get to know some people!

TIP: Grades and school rank matter a whole lot less than how you work in a team, and how likely you are to positively “represent” the firm as a whole. Grades are a factor, but so are MANY other factors in landing a MUTUAL business relationship.

August 8, 2010 1:58 PM

Anonymous said…

If trying to become a lawyer isn’t worth it to people (considering previous investment, job prospects, hassle, etc.) then don’t be a lawyer!If you failed to adequately research job prospects BEFORE you entered law school, then that’s the individual’s mistake for relying too much on one single statistic. You should have thought about that BEFORE you entered law school. Now live with it your error.August 8, 2010 2:23 PM

Nando said…

Tyson, how are things in Gaithersburg, MD, and Washington, DC? Why do you bother posting the same mindless drivel on this blog?To wit:“There are great complexities in our capitalist society and only lawyers have the acumen to figure them out.”

Also, did you mean to say, “There are great disparities of wealth in our capitalist society”? Thanks for the update, by the way. I didn’t realize that until you pointed it out. Regarding your belief that only lawyers can figure them out is arrogant, preposterous and silly. (Are you being deliberately dense? This is an act, right?)

As a self-admitted third year law student, what practical career advice do you have for the readers of this blog – other than “get your butt out there and get to know some people”? By the way, genius, PLENTY of law students have done exactly this, and are still unemployed. What is your excuse/explanation for this situation? Do these JDs suffer from poor hygiene, or poor social skills?! COULD IT BE THAT THERE REALLY ARE TOO MANY JDs FOR THE AVAILABLE NUMBER OF ATTORNEY POSITIONS?!?!

Also, why the over-reliance on straw men? Did anyone here state that if a job isn’t on the internet, it doesn’t exist? (Such jobs exist, and are posted internally. Good luck to the recent law grad who thinks he will be a candidate for such a position.)

To the tool at 11:30,

Steven Charles Krane devoted his entire “professional” life to crushing little people. This blog is backed up by the facts. I apologize if the harsh tone of this site offends your sensibilities. Perhaps, you should not visit this site, if it is not to your liking. You don’t think this portly man ever giggled himself silly, thinking about all those he screwed over?

You are correct, in that I don’t give a damn if Krane’s carcass has been in the ground for not quite 2 months. It is called schadenfruede. Look it up. (Should I feel sympathy for a serial rapist who dies in a shootout with police? If someone deliberately burns my house down, and then dies in a bus crash 2 years later, should I wait for an “appropriate” amount of time to pass before casting stones at the scoundrel?)

If you want to mourn this man’s passing, you are free to do so. However, DO NOT expect recent JDs and attorneys to share in that sentiment. Maybe, you can make a donation to the Steven C. Krane Fund, so you can help public interest lawyers pay back their student loans. Or, perhaps, you can toast his memory at your next business lunch.

August 8, 2010 2:56 PM

Anonymous said…

http://nylaw.typepad.com/new_york_civil_law/2007/10/the-state-comis.html Looks like the big guy was under investigation for patent fraud. A natural choice to head up ABA and NYSBA ethics commissions.”Wonder why Steven Krane was one of the guys who was elected for Judy’s post but he would have been nuts to take it as this would have been the first issue in his campaign. Krane who violates ethics, while acting under ethics titles, is sweating, and he needs to, as the matters of Iviewit were recently forwarded by John Dingell, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to the House Judiciary Committee where it is now under review.”August 8, 2010 3:24 PM

tyson said…

@ Nando: “COULD IT BE THAT THERE REALLY ARE TOO MANY JDs FOR THE AVAILABLE NUMBER OF ATTORNEY POSITIONS?!?!”If a firm or company wants you because of your value (brains, personality, real world experiences), then *poof* a “position” will appear. Its not like there are only a SET number of attorney positions – that is a ludicrous suggestion. The “positions” are based upon a firm or company’s WANTS and NEEDS and if you are valuable, you will land a “position.Do you know how many “braindead” people in every sector of our economy get paid $45k a year to basically do jack squat? A LOT. If you’re telling me that a very intelligent lawyer, who works fairly diligently won’t land at least a $45k job too, then you must be smoking some good ganja, ese.The money during the first two years as a lawyer doesn’t matter anyway. Even doctors start out at $40k / yr when they are residents. Law schools do not have residency programs… and maybe they should! Its about the long run.Besides, who cares if new law schools open? They are really just full of students who couldn’t get in anywhere else. Can’t you compete with these clowns? And if you can’t, then whose problem is it really? 

August 8, 2010 3:30 PM

Anonymous said…

http://www.i-newswire.com/iviewit-inventor-eliot-bernstein/44119 “Bernstein suing the FL & NY Supreme Courts, State Bars & Disciplinary Agencies, claims conflicted members of the courts, partners from Proskauer Rose LLP law firm, the main conspirator in Bernstein’s case along with law firm Foley & Lardner, illegally handled complaints against partners while holding official title with the courts & disciplinary agencies. In NY, Bernstein’s allegations led to unanimous consent of 5 justice of the NY Supreme Court to have former NY State Bar Association President, Steven Krane, a Proskauer partner, ordered for investigation for conflicts & the appearance of impropriety. Proskauer’s Kenneth Rubenstein, the sole (soulless) patent evaluator for MPEGLA LLC, ordered for investigation along with attorney Raymond Joao, who claims to have put 90+ patents into his own name. Bernstein claims patents filed by Joao were during & after the time Iviewit retained Joao to patent inventions for Bernstein, Joao patented them for himself instead.”Another glimpse into this mess. I hope people open these documents up in another browser and read what they contain.August 8, 2010 3:30 PM

Anonymous said…

3:30pm: I’m not sure what all this proves. Its just a complaint. It may be all dismissed on summary judgment. It would only take me about 2 months to read the complaint, considering it is about 323 pages of a legal area I know nothing about.August 8, 2010 4:48 PM

Anonymous said…

Might just be me, but 90 patents by a lawyer? Strange he wasn’t an engineer and saved the 200K.August 8, 2010 5:40 PM

Anonymous said…

There’s really not that big of a surplus of attorneys. If there were, you would expect BIGlaw salaries to drop significantly due to the surplus of unemployed T14s. And while BIGlaw salaries haven’t increased much in the last five years, they certainly haven’t dropped by any staggering amount.Although there are some examples of unemployed lawyers who are now venting, and kernels of truth to the “no law jobs” voice, I think this cry is mainly an exaggeration.Of course, if you are one of the few unemployed attorneys, it will feel like the end of the world and you would probably start a blog describing your woes.August 8, 2010 9:02 PM

Anonymous said…

That’s right 9:02pm. Another thing, who cares if there are no jobs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!The free market will work it all out. If law school is truly a bad deal, then people will stop going.August 8, 2010 9:18 PM Anonymous said…9:02 and 9:18 must be industry shills.No way could anyone be that stupid.August 8, 2010 9:20 PM

Anonymous said…

@9:20pm: You’ve got your opinion and you’re going to assert it!August 8, 2010 10:08 PM

Anonymous said…

Does anyone else find it odd that Nando sits around and preaches about the job market for attorneys when he has yet to take a bar exam or look for a job within the legal field? Additionally, if he was so much more intelligent than anyone else who has ever gone to law school then why a) did he only get in to Drake and more importantly b) did he go to law school at all?August 8, 2010 10:20 PM

Iviewit Federal RICO & ANTITRUST DEFENDANT MARC S. DREIER partner in crime free of 20 Year Sentence due to Drunkeness, Fed Court Judge Kimba “Love Judge” Wood whitewashes crimes using Alcohol excuse. Fed Whistleblower Lawsuit of Christine C. Anderson legally related to Iviewit complaint by Fed Judge Shira Scheindlin

Iviewit Federal RICO & ANTITRUST DEFENDANT MARC S. DREIER partner in crime free of 20 Year Sentence due to Drunkeness, Fed Court Judge Kimba “Love Judge” Wood whitewashes crimes using Alcohol excuse. Fed Whistleblower Lawsuit of Christine C. Anderson legally related to Iviewit complaint by Fed Judge Shira Scheindlin

<iframe src=”http://www.businessinsider.com/embed?id=4c35d7707f8b9ac04c400200&amp;width=600&amp;height=430” width=”600″ height=”430″ border=”0″ frameborder=”0″></iframe>

trophy-kiss

He just escaped a potential 20-year prison sentence by telling the judge that he used to be a “fearful, self-loathing suicidal alcoholic,” says the Wall Street Journal. He was just too drunk to realize that he was participating in a fraud.

It’s like he told his lawyer: ‘No matter how drunk I was, I wouldn’t have” [done it had I known it was a fraud].

Now Miller won’t have to spend anytime in jail. He will just have to live under “supervised release” for 2 years.

This is amazing because Miller already plead guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud and securities fraud in November.

Apparently, entering a guilty plea was just Miller’s laying the groundwork, because here’s how the judge saw it: She thought it showed his immediate acceptance of his crime.

Here’s the rest of the story about how he got out of it, starting from the beginning.

Miller was paid $100,000 to work for Marc Dreier.

Dreier was the mastermind behind a huge scheme that, as NYMag puts it, involved staging fictional conference calls, and impersonating executives, sometimes personally, sometimes with the help of an associate, all while snapping up Warhols and waterfront homes, partying with pop stars and football players, and chasing an endless parade of much-younger women.

Dreier pled guilty last year and really will have to spend 20 years in prison.

But Miller, the “associate” who helped Dreier, told the judge that he only did it because he was a drunk. A drunk who was too drunk too realize that he was participating in a fraud.

His lawyer explained to the judge: “If he had been aware this was a bogus note, if he had known this was to deceive, he himself has said, ‘No matter how drunk I was, I wouldn’t have” [done it], Laufer said. “He just came apart at the seams.”

This excuse totally worked.

From Dow Jones:

U.S. District Judge Kimba M. Wood said she believed that when Miller helped Dreier it was an “act born of desperation” in an otherwise laudable life.

Now Miller is wholly reformed having embraced Alcoholics Anonymous and begun working as a counselor in a California rehabilitation facility.

**Round of applause.**

Courtney Comstock is a writer at Clusterstock.
Contact:
e-mail:
ccomstock@businessinsider.com
AIM:
cstockatbi
Work Phone:
646 484 6660 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 646 484 6660 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Subscribe to her twitter feed

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-miller-alcoholic-2010-7##ixzz0tBgHntnu

Surf with Vision